The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly: Languages

Mr Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday’s statement by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety was made in Irish and English. However, the accompanying documentation omitted a paragraph of the statement in English, and that paragraph was also omitted when the statement was read out to the House. Can you give a ruling on statements that are made in Irish and English, to ensure that the full text is delivered in a language that everybody in the House understands?

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for the question. Anything said in the House that is translated should be made available in full. I will look into the matter.

Assembly: Ministerial Statements

Mr Alan McFarland: I want to raise a point of order under Standing Order 18, which deals with ministerial statements. The purpose of ministerial statements — certainly at Westminster — is to enable Ministers to bring urgent issues before the House. They are the exception rather than the rule. Our system seems to allow routine statements to be brought before the House. If they are routine, then, theoretically, they should be included in the programme of business. Yesterday, while sitting here with a Colleague — one of the Deputy Speakers — I noticed that he had a modified programme of business for today, which would take us through to 8 o’clock this evening. I did not pay much attention to it, but this morning I see that that programme of business has now been made available to Members. I am slightly worried that Members are the last to know about a modified timetable.
The difficulty is that we have all had to adjust our programmes for today because of ministerial statements that you knew about yesterday. Will you, Mr Speaker, and the Business Committee get together with the Standing Orders Committee and the Executive to re-examine how we do business —

Mr Speaker: Order. I understand the point of order that the Member is making and wish to respond to it now. It would be inappropriate for us to enter into a long discourse on this matter. Someone should raise it directly with the Procedures Committee or the Business Committee. I would be quite happy to do so.
However, the Member has made a number of comments that I need to correct. First, statements are not unusual at Westminster. They happen every week. Indeed a complaint from the outgoing Speaker was that Ministers made not too many statements to the House but too few. The tendency nowadays is to make statements outside the House, which does not give Members the chance to respond, whereas Ministers are encouraged to make statements inside the House, where Members can ask questions. I do not believe that the Member’s account of how it is in the House of Commons is correct.
Secondly, the note that the Member saw had not been circulated to all Members; it was loose guidance to the Whips — something that has been provided for quite a long time. There are various items on it, such as suggested times, but they are merely advice notes and do not have any particular standing. The Whips could tell you how frequently, to their despair, the information has to be changed.
Thirdly, it is not the case that ministerial statements are known for sure in advance. Often, for very good reasons, Ministers indicate that they wish to make a statement but, because of some change in circumstances, the arrangement has to be altered.
If it is becoming apparent to the House, including the Member who raised the question, that it is difficult to make sure that there is a degree of order in these matters, then the Member has provided a service to the House. It is extremely difficult to keep all of these things in order.
I will certainly undertake to raise with both the Business Committee and the Procedures Committee the Member’s reasonable concerns. However, a point of order must relate to the Standing Orders that we have, and not to their alleged unsatisfactoriness. What we have is not out of order. Nonetheless, I accept that there are practical issues at stake.

BSE

Mr Speaker: I have received from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety notice that they wish to make a joint statement on the BSE inquiry report.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am grateful for the opportunity to advise the Assembly formally of the publication of the report of the BSE inquiry, known as the Phillips report. Nick Brown, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, made a detailed statement to the House of Commons on 26 October 2000, but this is the first opportunity that I have had to advise the Assembly of the report’s publication.
The BSE report is a substantial piece of work, consisting of 16 volumes and some 4,000 pages. For that reason, it has not been practical to supply Members with individual copies. However, the report is available on the Internet, and Minister de Brún and I have supplied members of the Agriculture and Rural Development and Health Committees with individual copies of the two most relevant volumes of the report, along with a CD-ROM version of the full report. I will speak now about the agricultural aspects of the BSE report, following which Minister de Brún will deal with those aspects which more directly concern her.
The inquiry was commissioned by the GB Agriculture and Health Ministers and by the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997.
Its terms of reference were as follows:
"To establish and review the history of the emergence and identification of BSE and new variant CJD in the United Kingdom, and of the action taken in response to it up to 20 March 1996; to reach conclusions on the adequacy of that response, taking into account the state of knowledge at the time; and to report on these matters to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
The members of the committee were Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (Master of the Rolls), Mrs June Bridgeman CB and Prof Malcolm Ferguson-Smith. The committee faced an enormous task. More than 1,000 people submitted written evidence. Some 140 public hearings were held, involving over 300 witnesses, some of whom were from Northern Ireland. The inquiry team sifted through about 3,000 files of contemporary official documents, including those relating to Northern Ireland. Against that background, Lord Phillips and his team are to be congratulated on providing such a comprehensive report — the outcome of almost three years of thorough investigative work.
The advent of devolution in Northern Ireland — as well as in Scotland and Wales — since the committee’s work began means that it falls to the devolved Administrations to consider the report’s findings and to take appropriate action.
The report makes a significant contribution to our understanding of BSE, how it emerged and its tragic consequences for the new variant CJD victims. It catalogues the action and inaction of the Government of the time in their response to the emerging crisis. It does so with balance, and it recognises that hindsight should not be a factor. The history of BSE, the emerging science and CJD linkage unfold through the events outlined in the report.
The inquiry report concentrated on the way that policy measures were developed; delays in taking action at various points in the BSE story; concerns at how messages about BSE were conveyed to the public; Government expectations of their scientific advisory committees; enforcement of BSE controls; matters relating to cosmetics, medicines and occupational health risks; concerns about communications failures between Departments; and a collective failure to revisit key scientific assumptions about BSE on a sufficiently regular basis. It highlights the key lessons to be learned, and it is important for the Assembly to identify those. The main message is that animal health and disease issues are no respecters of geographical boundaries.
The inquiry has been a necessary process. CJD victims, their families and carers are owed an explanation. The food and farming industries need to understand what happened. The report will help us to learn the lessons of the BSE crisis.
The first area that the committee looked at with regard to Northern Ireland was whether it was right for Northern Ireland to look to London to take the lead in combating BSE. The report concludes that it was. The second area related to whether the then Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland was sufficiently rigorous in its approach to the enforcement of the BSE control measures. The report concludes that the over-reassuring line taken on BSE in Great Britain was mirrored here, but there is no evidence to suggest that it led to any laxity of enforcement in Northern Ireland.
The third area related to an aspect of which different line was taken in Northern Ireland, the notification requirement for cases of BSE in cattle. Notification in Northern Ireland was made compulsory some five months later than in Great Britain. The report concludes that, while it may have been prudent to keep in step with Great Britain, the delay was reasonable in the circumstances and unlikely to have led to cases being missed.
We also differed from Great Britain in the introduction of the ruminant feed ban, in relation to which Northern Ireland acted later than Great Britain. The committee asked whether the delay was reasonable and whether it contributed to the prolonging of the epidemic in Northern Ireland. The report concludes that, with hindsight, it would have been preferable not to have had the delay, and that it may have contributed slightly to the 1,710 BSE cases which occurred between 1988 and 1996.
Nevertheless, the report states that the decision to delay the imposition of the ban in NorthernIreland was not unreasonable. The report considers whether Northern Ireland should have argued for an independent animal health status, as opposed to being linked with the UnitedKingdom position, and concludes that NorthernIreland was correct to follow the overall UK line.
Finally, the committee looked at the contention made by some that Northern Ireland’s animal health computer system helped to alleviate the effects of the BSE crisis in NorthernIreland. The committee agreed with my Department that, although the computer system was helpful in facilitating the early resumption of beef exports from Northern Ireland, it had no effect, during the period in question, on the progress of the disease.
Overall, the fact that the report does not criticise the actions of any NorthernIreland Minister or official is, to some extent, cold comfort. The impact of the BSE crisis on NorthernIreland has been profound. In particular, I would like to express my sympathy to the family of Maurice Callaghan, who was one of the earliest victims of vCJD. I am sure that other Members would wish to be associated with that expression of sympathy. For the Callaghan family, that was an obvious personal tragedy.
The BSE story has, of course, had other implications. One thousand eight hundred cases of BSE have been identified since 1988, resulting in the slaughter of 2,300 animals and the payment of £1·6million in compensation. However, the effects go much wider than that and include lost beef export opportunities, damage to consumer confidence in beef and other meats, and the impacts on other sectors which have had to shoulder the burden of tight controls. All those things have had a serious impact, particularly on the lives of people in the rural community.
The Government have announced that they are to review in detail the contents of the report, and my officials — together with those from the other devolved Administrations and from Whitehall — will be fully involved in that process.
I shall end by setting out some of the action that has been taken by Government in the period following that covered by the inquiry. In 1999 the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) was created as an independent body charged with guarding public health in food matters. The FSA, which is accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly for its work here, recently published its draft review of BSE controls. Subject to confirmation shortly, that draft review will not propose any change to the existing control measures that the FSA considers sufficiently robust to allow the public to consume UK beef with confidence. The FSA has a key role in protecting health and in giving sound information to the public. The agency is required to operate openly and that is an important factor in addressing some of the deficiencies identified by the BSE inquiry report.
Much work must now be undertaken to implement the remaining findings of the BSE inquiry. That work has already started, and I will ensure that it is accorded priority by my officials in the weeks and months ahead.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: MrPoots raised a point about my statement yesterday. Anything that was said in the Chamber in one language was also said in the other language, but, owing to an administrative error, a sentence was left out from the English written version of my statement. I apologise for the administrative error, and I have now circulated copies to Members. However, I assure Members that the statements given in the Chamber were exactly the same.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister for referring to the matter. That is extremely helpful.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: A Cheann Comhairle, tá mé buíoch as an deis a bheith agam le fáilte a chur roimh Thuairisc Phillips agus le seans breac-chuntas a thabhairt ar na bearta a rinne mé agus a bhfuil mé ag déanamh machnaimh orthu i bhfreagairt ar na léirmheasanna agus ar na moltaí sa tuairisc.
Rinne an tAire Talmhaíochta agus Forbartha Tuaithe tagairt do stádas na tuairisce anseo agus thug sí cur síos ar chuid dá príomhchinnte. Cé go gcuireann an tuairisc bearta agus rúin rialtais maidir le ESB suas go dtí 1996 i gcroinic, titeann sé ar Airí cineachta anseo feidhm a bhaint as na ceachtanna a foghlaimníodh agus bearta a chur i gcrích le fulaingt na ndaoine sin a bhfuil an GCJ athraitheach orthu a mhaolú agus le fulaingt a dteaghlach a mhaolú fosta.
Chuir foireann an fhiosrúcháin ar ESB agallamh ar agus ghlac sí fianaise ó fheidhmeannaigh ghairmiúla agus riaracháin ón iar-Roinn Sláinte agus Seirbhísí Sóisialta lena n-áirítear an Rúnaí Buan deiridh agus athphríomhoifigh mhíochaine chomh maith leo sin atá ann anois. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le gach feidhmeannach a d’oibríodh don Roinn agus leo sin atá ag obair di anois a chuidigh leis an fhoireann fhiosrúcháin ina cuid oibre. Pléann an tuairisc rólanna agus freagrachtaí fheidhmeannaigh na RSSS, ach níl lochtú inti ar fheidhmeannaigh aonair na Roinne, nó go comhchoiteannta, ar bhearta na Roinne le linn na tréimhse a bhfuil scrúdú á dhéanamh uirthi.
Is é mo phríomhchúram sa tsaincheist seo ná an tragóid daonna atá ag teacht chun cinn i ndiaidh éifeacht uafásach na géarchéime ESB ar an chomhphobal feirmeoireachta. Galar meathlúcháin inchinne é an Galar Athraitheach Creutzfeldt-Jakob i ndaoine, agus creidtear gur nochtadh don ghníomhaí ar faoi dear é ESB san eallach is cúis leis an ghalar. Is forbairt thromchúiseach sa tsláinte phoiblí í teacht chun cinn an GCJ athraithigh, a mbíonn iarmhairtí uafásacha ann do na híobartaigh, ar daoine óga iad a mbunús, agus dá dteaghlaigh.
I am grateful for the opportunity to welcome the Phillips report and to outline the actions that I have taken, or am considering, in response to its comments and recommendations.
The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has already mentioned the status of the report here and described some of the main findings. Although the report chronicles the actions and intentions of the Government on BSE up to 1996, it falls to devolved Ministers here to carry forward the lessons learnt, and to implement action to help alleviate the suffering of vCJD patients and their families.
The BSE inquiry team interviewed and took evidence from professional and administrative officials within what was the Department of Health and Social Services, including the previous permanent secretary and the previous and current chief medical officers.
I thank all the departmental officials, past and present, who helped the inquiry team. The report discusses the roles and responsibilities of Department of Health and Social Services officials. However, it contains no criticism of individual departmental officials, or, collectively, of the actions of the Department during the period under consultation.
My primary concern is the emerging human tragedy following the devastating impact of the BSE crisis on the farming community. Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease is a degenerative brain disease in humans, which is believed to be caused by exposure to the agent which causes BSE in cattle. The emergence of vCJD is a serious public health development with terrible consequences for victims, most of whom are young, and their families. The disease is always fatal, with the average duration of illness being 14 months. Currently, there is no simple, non-invasive diagnostic test for vCJD. Knowledge and techniques are improving and give hope that early diagnosis will result in appropriate care for patients. Sadly, at present there is no effective treatment and consequently no cure.
According to our latest information, there have been 85 cases in England, Scotland, Wales and here, most of whom have already died of the illness. There has been one confirmed case of vCJD here, and I would also like, as Minister Rodgers has done, to take this opportunity to extend my sympathy to the family of Maurice Callaghan.
There has also been one confirmed case in the South. As the incubation period for the illness is likely to be long, we cannot be certain about how many victims there will be in the future. The inquiry said that vCJD victims and their families have special needs. My Department will be issuing guidance before the end of the month aimed at assisting health and personal social services to respond rapidly, in a co-ordinated manner, to the physical, social and psychological needs of vCJD patients and their carers, as they arise. In particular, the guidance focuses on the following: the identification of a key worker to co-ordinate care for patients and families, regardless of the setting in which care is given; the co-ordination of a care plan for the patient and support for carers; the need to adopt a flexible and creative approach to care that is responsive to the needs and wishes of each patient and family; the involvement of specialist palliative care wherever possible; and support for families caring for patients at home.
In the light of the emphasis that the report placed on the health care needs of variant CJD patients and their families, I am considering a number of additional components, including the availability of central Government moneys to fund care and the development of a managed clinical network. My officials are exploring those issues with colleagues in England, Scotland and Wales.
I am also considering, in consultation with England, Scotland and Wales, a number of options relating to ex gratia payments for variant CJD patients and their families. The legal advice is that there is nothing in the BSE inquiry report that requires Government to accept liability in such cases. However, in recognition of the suffering of patients and their families and the expense that they have incurred, there is a strong argument in favour of some form of ex gratia payment without prejudice to any court proceedings. Any proposals would have to be fully discussed and agreed with representatives of the patients. It is anticipated that any resultant costs would be met directly by the Treasury.
As the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development noted, the establishment of the Food Standards Agency will be an important part of our response to the problems of food safety identified in the report. The agency will be a vital tool in ensuring that public health is safeguarded and in developing public confidence in the food that we eat. As I said yesterday, I am pleased to note that the agency is now in operation here.
I look forward to working closely with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development on these issues and on the other issues that flow from the report.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I welcome the statements from both Ministers. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development said that work on the implementation of the remaining aspects of the inquiry was beginning. What steps are involved in that process and what measures have been put in place to safeguard public health?

Ms Brid Rodgers: My counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales and I will be responding to the report’s findings. My officials are considering those findings at the moment, but the report runs to 16 volumes. There will be a preliminary Government response, probably in the new year.
Numerous safeguards are now in place. Cattle suspected of having BSE are compulsorily slaughtered and their carcasses incinerated, and milk produced by cows who are suspected of having BSE may not be used for human consumption. Specified risk material (SRM) controls prohibit the use of specified materials that are known to — or might, theoretically — harbour BSE, including imported beef, sheep meat, goat meat and certain other animal products. Bovine, ovine and caprine vertebral columns cannot be used to make products for human consumption; that applies particularly to mechanically recovered meat. Bovine meat that is over thirty months old at slaughter may not be sold for human consumption. Bones from cattle over six months that originate in this country may not be used in the manufacture of food or food products that are not supplied directly to the ultimate consumer; that would apply, for instance, to a restaurant. We are also setting up surveillance for BSE, ahead of the EU requirement to do so.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the publication of the report and the statement by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. It is unfortunate that the Health Minister, in her opening comments, made a joke of these proceedings. This is a most serious and tragic matter, and it was turned into a farce and a play on language. I think that is very sad given the set of circumstances that we are dealing with today.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: rose. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. I will give the Minister an opportunity to respond as soon as the Member has completed his question. It is not possible to intervene during the question.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: There is no doubt that BSE has had a devastating impact on our export beef trade, and the Agriculture Minister is still having to deal with a problem of immense proportions. The Health Minister is having to deal with a problem of unknown proportions — that must go on the record.
I wish that the matter could be put behind us, but I believe that that is unrealistic. It is clear that the Minister and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have in place the most rigorous standards which protect the beef trade and go towards assuring the entire industry that our beef is safe and, therefore, that consumers are also safe.
I welcome the announcement that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will be carrying out a review on the Phillips report, but I would like to know how much public money will be spent on that.
I would also like to ask the Health Minister how much will be spent on ex gratia payments to the victims of variant CJD. What resources will her Department be putting into examining the problems identified in the report?
I would like to refer both Ministers to volume one, page 29 and the section referring to victims and their families. The report states quite clearly that the victims of variant CJD and their families have special needs which must be addressed. I would like to know how those special needs are going to be addressed apart from ex gratia payments. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development said that the Department here has not been found wanting in its actions, but that was cold comfort to the victims. People want to see a cure for this disease and want to find medication —

Mr Speaker: The Member has put a number of questions, and he has begun to make a speech on the issue. I am sorry, but I must ask the two Ministers to respond in the order they choose.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Given that I was specifically named by the Member in what I feel was a totally disgraceful way, I would, first of all, like to make it clear that I have made absolutely no joke of this. The Member is very aware that he is playing not only to the gallery but to the media, and he is misleading the public by suggesting that I have done or would do such a thing. It is he who is making a joke of this; it is he who is playing party political games with vital questions about public health. It is a pity he did not limit himself to real questions.
The Department will spend as much money as necessary to put in place proper public health. The population’s health is paramount in what we will be seeking to do arising out of the recommendations and studies which we carry out.
It would not be appropriate to discuss, at this stage, possible amounts for ex gratia payments, but officials are looking at options — including the setting up of a trust fund. Discussions have already taken place between the Department of Health in England and the families, and it is hoped that agreement can be reached on such payments. I believe it is important that we consider the issue of ex gratia payments to the families of variant CJD victims in recognition of the devastating nature of the illness and the fact that the Government are their last resort.
As to the question of how special needs are to be addressed by my Department, I refer the Member to my statement in which I outlined point by point some of the ways in which we are issuing guidance in order to ensure that this is addressed.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The question to me was about public expenditure. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will make available whatever public expenditure is necessary. Public health is a priority with my Department too, and whatever resources are required will be put to this use.

Mr David Ford: I welcome the statements by the two Ministers and, from this corner of the Chamber, associate myself and my Colleagues with the expression of sympathy to the families of sufferers from variant CJD, not merely in Northern Ireland but in every part of these islands. With reference to the need for a synchronised approach to the common problems of animal and human health — which is a topic for the future and which goes far beyond the potential of BSE and goes beyond what we were talking about yesterday with regard to the Food Standards Agency — what exactly is being done by their Departments to co-ordinate those arrangements with other regions of the UK?
The Phillips report ignored the Republic because that was not part of its function. However, we must ensure the co-ordination of cross-border health, especially as the border is an even narrower channel for protecting health than the Irish sea is. In view of the recommendation of the urgent need for screening sheep for BSE because of the danger of its being concealed behind scrapie, what is being done to set in motion that screening process in Northern Ireland? This is important as there is an urgent need to ensure consumer confidence.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: With regard to the need for a synchronised approach, the officials from our two Departments are working closely to ensure that the lessons learnt are tackled in a synchronised and integrated way. That is the case not only between the two Departments here but also between officials in England, Scotland and Wales. We also have arrangements in my Department on an all- Ireland basis. This would be one of the key elements with regard to the North/South Ministerial Council, and my participation in that will be directed at food safety issues. The Minister of Agriculture will deal with the aspects in her remit. Discussions between the officials in my Department are ongoing with the chief medical officers and both the North/South Ministerial Council and the Food Safety Promotion Board. Also, the Food Standards Agency and the Food Standards Agency of Ireland will combine with the Departments to ensure that this approach is fully integrated across all aspects of society and all Departments here.

Ms Brid Rodgers: My answer to the first part of Mr Ford’s question is that many meetings are taking place — sectoral meetings at North/South Ministerial Council level, at senior official level and at working level between the Departments across the water and here, North and South. Of course, more will be devised as we proceed.
As to the question of sheep, there is no evidence that BSE is actually in sheep, and what the Food Standards Agency was talking about was the need to establish the facts and, in the meantime, to take sensible precautions to protect public health. It also referred to the need to have a contingency plan to deal with the situation should it emerge that BSE is in sheep. Research work is underway to determine whether the disease is present in sheep but, to date, has not produced such a result.
In the meantime, we already have controls to ensure that animals suspected of having bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) do not enter slaughterhouses or get into the food chain. It is not possible to screen live sheep for scrapie or BSE, but we are setting up arrangements to screen sheep for genetic resistance to the diseases, so that that resistance may be bred into the national flock. We intend to co-operate with the Republic of Ireland on the eradication of scrapie from the island. The disease is, in any case, quite rare north and south of the border, and much rarer than in Great Britain. Finally, we are currently involved in the development of the UK contingency planning exercise.

Mr Alan McFarland: I welcome the report and associate my party with the expressions of sympathy for the victims of CJD. It is fair to say that this crisis has caused enormous damage to confidence, particularly confidence in medical and scientific advisers. Aside from the sheep BSE issue, I notice that many countries in Europe are experiencing a fairly dramatic increase in BSE. What steps are in place to ensure that products coming into this country — since we cannot export — are checked, so that we do not have another crisis looming in the future?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Exactly the same controls apply to products coming into this country as apply to products in this country. Those controls are strictly adhered to, and we have continuous monitoring and inspection of carcasses coming into the abattoirs. Our staff are there to ensure that the controls are in place and are working.

Mr P J Bradley: I also welcome the report, and I welcome the prompt action of the Departments of Agriculture and Health in bringing their analysis to the Assembly so soon after the report. Given that the report is a 4,000-page document, with an accompanying CD-ROM, I think that I will be reading it until after Christmas. I therefore welcome the analysis that has been given this morning.
Does the Minister accept the conclusion of the report that Northern Ireland was right to follow the overall UK line rather than argue for independent animal health status? Was that the correct procedure?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I take it that the question is whether I agree with the report. I would be very reluctant to disagree with a report that has been so thorough and which has gone into such great detail on all aspects relating to this extremely serious matter.

Mr Edwin Poots: As a result of the BSE crisis, I believe that the Government took action in Northern Ireland to ensure that the most stringent measures were put in place for the production of beef. To some extent that has restored consumer confidence in Northern Ireland beef production. However, one of the issues mentioned in Ms Rodgers’s statement was about delays in taking action at various points in the BSE story. Very regrettably there have been deaths here and in other parts of the United Kingdom as a result of those delays. We also would like to convey our sympathies.
It is essential that Northern Ireland’s stringent standards be applied to beef imported into Northern Ireland. I would like the Minister to confirm today — because I am not sure that she is actually saying this — that beef over 30 months old cannot be imported from the Irish Republic, and that Irish Republic animals that have had BSE cannot be imported into Northern Ireland. These matters are essential. If we cannot learn from our past problems and apply the same stringent standards to items imported into the Province, then we are in for a turbulent time.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Is that a question?

Mr Speaker: Perhaps it would be helpful to the Minister if the Member were to put the question again.

Mr Edwin Poots: It was quite clear. Can animals over 30 months old be imported into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic, which has a growing BSE problem? Can beef from those animals be imported into Northern Ireland? If so, what steps will be taken to prevent that happening?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I apologise. I understand the question now. It can be difficult to figure out the question from the midst of a speech.
The position is that such animals are not used for human consumption in Northern Ireland. They cannot be used.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I welcome the statements by the two Ministers. Will they assure the House that there will be a substantive and co-ordinated ongoing review of compensation to include future cases of variant CJD? The Minister of Health outlined the matter in her statement in a substantive way. May I ask the Minister what guarantees can be given to patients and their carers that their needs will be addressed given the problems of community care at the present time?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Serious consideration is being given to making ex gratia payments to families of victims. Legal counsel has advised that compensation is not appropriate but people are working diligently on the question of the options for making ex gratia payments to patients and their families. I will announce full details when discussions have been concluded and a final decision on the scheme has been made.
Given the expressions from all sides, the Assembly will also give careful consideration to the resources needed to ensure that the points that have been made will be taken account of and the needs of the families met should future cases arise.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I would like to express my party’s sympathy to the families and the carers of the variant CJD victims. I too welcome the report.
Does the Minister of Agriculture accept that the logical and best course to follow is to develop a single animal health regime for the island of Ireland? Close co-operation with the Southern authorities would give more direct control over animal diseases which have the potential to do serious damage to agriculture industry.
Considering the report I am assuming it will not affect her lobby to secure low incidence BSE status for Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister will tell Members how Northern Ireland beef compares to beef in other countries?

Ms Brid Rodgers: There are two or three questions there. In relation to animal health I am pleased to inform MsLewsley that animal health is one of the issues which I have put on the agenda for the next North/South sectoral meeting with the Minister for Agriculture. I am aware of the all-Ireland nature of animal health because of our land border, and that is an important issue. Without the enhanced co-operation that comes from the North/South Ministerial Council the matter would not be as easily dealt with.
The other question was in relation to the implications of the report for the relaxation of the export ban. Was that the issue which the Member raised?

Ms Patricia Lewsley: My question was with reference to the Minister’s lobby to secure low incidence BSE status for Northern Ireland.

Ms Brid Rodgers: Critics will find grounds on which to object to our case if they wish, perhaps even on a political basis. Any fair-minded reader of the report will find it reassuring that Northern Ireland handled the BSE crisis properly at the time and produced effective controls.
We do have a genuinely low incidence of the disease. I sent that message to my European colleagues as recently as two weeks ago when I was at the Salon International de l’Agro-Alimentaire (SIAL) Exhibition in France. I had some meetings over there. I will continue to send that message and a reading of the report will give reassurance on just how strict our controls are and how we have reacted to the problem. It is hard to see that the report would be anything but helpful in our case.
As regards the difference between Northern Ireland beef and that from other countries, in my view, Northern Ireland beef is very safe. In fact, in relation to the ban on feed going to animals, we have a wider feed ban than other countries in Europe. I am happy to say that our very strict controls are effective in that regard. The fact that our incidence of BSE has gone down considerably to very low figures is an indication of that.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I thank the Ministers for their report today, and I particularly welcome the Phillips report. May I ask both Ministers what measures are being taken and what research and monitoring is being done to ensure that there is no further transference of disease? Yesterday Mr McCartney referred to the introduction of sewage pellets as a means of ground fertilisation. What efforts are being made to ensure that there is no further transfer of disease to the human food chain?
What is being done by both Ministers to ensure that confidence is given back to a devastated industry? The Phillips report quite rightly points out that the farming community, and indeed the population in general, deserve a full explanation as to how this plague arrived. What are the Ministers doing to ensure that ingredients, whether from the rendering industry, or any other industry that supplies an ingredient that may enter the food chain, are sterile and inert and cannot carry disease? The rush for cheap and easily produced food products is always a threat, and therefore I ask both Ministers to say what they are doing to ensure that monitoring is effective.
I represent a rural area that has been devastated due to this plague, and one of my constituents suffered a very long and lingering death. That constituent, a child evangelist, was probably the least likely person to contract the variant of BSE. Is that family, after 17 months of attending hospitals and looking after their dear one, not being insulted by the paltry ex gratia payment? I ask the Ministers to treat this case as it deserves. I would expect them to be honourable in these payments.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I will take my part of the question and let my Colleague take hers.
I thank Mr Gibson for his question. First, he asks what efforts are being made to ensure that this never happens again. I have referred to some of those efforts, in my speech and in my responses to some of the questions. The Food Standards Agency is there to ensure that it never happens again. The spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee is continually monitoring the situation and giving scientific advice. We will always look at what more can be done and will be guided by the scientific advice and by our own information at ground level. Rendering is also covered in our monitoring processes and controls.
In relation to restoring confidence, I can only say that my Department is doing, and will continue to do, everything possible to ensure food safety, and we will look at what more can be done. We will be open and honest about the situation, as I have been today and will continue to be, and we will let the public know precisely what we are doing and how we are doing it. Nobody can ever guarantee that something will never happen again, but we are doing everything we can to ensure that the human tragedy of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease will never affect another family.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: My Department contributes to the research funding for CJD, along with health Departments in Great Britain — there is a very extensive research programme. The CJD Surveillance Unit in Edinburgh also monitors the disease, and clinicians here refer matters to it to ensure that all possible connections are made. The Food Standards Agency has been reviewing current BSE control through public meetings since April 2000. The most recent open meeting was held in London on Thursday 2 November. The Food Standards Agency will submit a published report to Health and Agriculture Ministers in Westminster, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and this Assembly. The report will take account of the report into the BSE inquiry. The agency’s review will include a revision of the main measures employed to protect the public against BSE variant CJD via the food chain and will consider both the adequacy of the measures to protect public health and their proportionality to the assessed risk.
From my opening statement and comments, Members will appreciate that we recognise that there is a very strong argument for making ex gratia payments to families in recognition of the devastating effects of the disease on patients and their families.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I welcome the statement from both Ministers. I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how exactly the report will be developed and its findings implemented to prevent the development and to control the presence of this awful disease. We are all very aware that, at present, there is neither an effective treatment nor a cure.

Ms Brid Rodgers: We will take the findings of the report forward and produce responses to them in conjunction with my colleagues in England, Scotland and Wales. At the moment, officials are considering in depth the findings of the report, and there will be a preliminary Government response, probably in the new year. It is a very lengthy and broad report, and we are treating this as a matter of urgency and gravity. There are many lessons to be learned from the report and, to do it justice, we will need to study it in depth and discuss it with officials in England, Scotland and Wales in order to produce a response.

Mr Speaker: If Members wish to ask questions they must let us know in advance. Otherwise it is extremely difficult to manage the situation.

Rev William McCrea: I did indicate to you, Mr Speaker, that I wanted to ask a question, and you nodded your head in my direction. Anyway, I am happy that you let the question in.
I accept the debt that we owe to Lord Phillips for the report on a very serious situation. Nobody could fully understand the pain of those who have suffered or are suffering from CJD. Neither can anybody fully understand the pain suffered by members of the farming community and families, bearing in mind that, almost overnight, a very vibrant industry was turned into a total disaster.
Many farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy; and some are floundering in bankruptcy itself.
The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has rightly stated that her Department and its predecessor handled the crisis appropriately and produced effective and efficient measures. We owe the officials in that Department our appreciation for their work.
It is important that we have all the facts. As the Minister promised to give the people of Northern Ireland the facts for the future, can she tell the House and the people of this Province how many infected animals have been identified in Northern Ireland in the past 12months, and how many in the Republic of Ireland? Is it not a fact that Northern Ireland’s quota proved the lowest in the whole of Europe, while statistics for the Irish Republic tended towards the highest? As our community must be protected so that we have neither victims of the disease nor a continuation of BSE, how will the Minister prevent infected animals from the Irish Republic coming into the food chain here?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Last year we had six cases of BSE, and so far this year we have had 16. That is not a cause for concern. As we reach the final tailing-off of the disease we will not have a straight, linear decrease; the graph will fluctuate — up one year, down the next. However, the incidence of the disease here is well below the recognised threshold for low incidence status. As far as I know, Northern Ireland does not have the lowest BSE incidence in Europe, nor does the Republic of Ireland have the highest. I am not the Minister of Agriculture for the Republic of Ireland, but I will get the figures for the Member. At this moment, I do not have that information.
However, as I have already assured MrPoots, I can remind Members that animals coming here from the Republic will not be available for human consumption if they are over 30 months old.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I address my question to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. In some of the most recent cases of CJD, sufferers have been somewhat older than before. As dementia has similar symptoms, in some cases their illness has been misdiagnosed. Are statistics available to illustrate the depth of this problem?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The elderly patient to whom the Member referred was not suspected of suffering from variant CJD in his lifetime, but a post-mortem examination proved that he had the disease. There is little evidence to date of cases of variant CJD having been missed, but we cannot rule out the possibility that some illnesses among the elderly were misdiagnosed. The case of the 74-year-old patient in England emphasises the importance of this case, and it also underlines the need for diagnostic vigilance, whatever the age group.
One of the gaps in our knowledge about variant CJD is the extent to which people may have the disease, or may be incubating the disease, but have not yet shown the symptoms. However, it is something we are aware of and are concerned about.

Planning (Compensation, etc) Bill: Second Stage

Mr Sam Foster: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Planning (Compensation, etc) Bill [NI 7/00] be agreed.
This Bill repeals various compensation provisions in the Land Development Values (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 and the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. It also corrects the drafting error in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. Similar compensation provisions were repealed in Great Britain in 1991.
It will help to explain the purpose of this Bill if I first set out the background of the provisions that are to be repealed and amended. By far the most significant of these provisions are contained in the Land Development Values (Compensation) Act, which for simplicity’s sake I will refer to from now on as the 1965 Act. Before the introduction of this Act the position in Northern Ireland was that compensation could be paid for refusal of planning permission or for permission granted subject to conditions.
In recognition of the fact that the planning system was for the benefit of the wider community, and not just for an individual, the Government at that time decided that they could no longer justify paying out such compensation indefinitely, especially when land values had been largely created by the actions of the state rather than the individual. Parts I and II of the 1965 Act sought to establish a system of compensation which placed a once-and-for-all development value on land as determined at a fixed date. The fixed date was 25February1963. The system worked like this. PartI of the Act required a landowner who believed that his or her land had a development value to apply to the then Ministry of Development for a determination of that value. All applications had to be submitted by 4February1968. The calculation of the development value was based on the difference between the unrestricted value of the land on 25February1963, and the restricted value on the same date.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
The unrestricted value was simply the value of the land, taking account not only of its existing use but also of any potential land value for a more profitable or new development. The restricted value was the value of the land with existing use only. ScheduleI of the Act defined existing use development. All other development was to be regarded as new development. An area plan was given a development value only if the unrestricted value exceeded the restricted value by 10% or more.
PartII of the Act mainly provided for the assessment and payment of compensation. To make a claim, four criteria had to be satisfied: first, the land in question had to have a development value, determined under PartI of the 1965 Act; secondly, a permission for new development had to have been refused or granted subject to conditions; thirdly, the value of the land had to have depreciated because of the refusal or conditional permission; and fourthly, no compensation had to have been paid in respect of the land under previous planning legislation. If these criteria were satisfied, a claim could be paid, but it was restricted to the development value previously determined under PartI of the Act, which was calculated at 1963 prices.
Given this restriction, and to offset the effects of inflation, it will come as no surprise to Members that most claims were made and paid in the 10years or so following the date on which the Act was passed. It has been some time since any payments have been made under partsIandII of the Act. We do not believe there are any significant outstanding claims under these parts, and they are now regarded as obsolete and ready to be repealed, with one exception. PartII of the Act also provided for the recovery of compensation by the Ministry if new development was later permitted on the land in question. I believe that it is appropriate for the Department to continue to recover compensation in these circumstances, and this provision will be retained in the Bill.
I will move on to part III of the 1965 Act and, in particular, to section 29. The section stands separate from parts I and II, and provides for compensation to be paid
"where a planning application for development, other than new development, is refused or permitted subject to conditions, and where the refusal or conditional permission results in the depreciation in the value of the land".
As I have explained, development other than new or existing use development is defined in schedule 1 to the Act. The definition has several parts, and the part that has given rise to all recent payments by my Department concerns a refusal to permit the rebuilding of any building that was in existence on 4 November 1965 or was destroyed or demolished in the five years before that date.
Section 29 was regarded as an exceptional clause to provide for compensation on the rare occasion when an application for existing use development was refused. No part I development value determination was needed to claim under the section and payments were at current values. However, planning policies inevitably change to reflect the needs of society, and what may have been regarded as "existing use" in 1965 is hardly so 35 years later. Section 29 has long ceased to be an exceptional clause. It is used all too frequently and has resulted in annual payments of around £100,000 by my Department for the past 10 years. The trend is very much upward and current liability could be as high as £2 million. There is no justification for continuing this drain on public funds, when the general principle behind modern planning law is that compensation is not paid when planning permission is refused.
This is the position in the rest of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the refusals have little to do with replacement buildings, which a number of Members are concerned about. In many cases where claims are made under the rebuilding criterion set down in schedule 1 to the Act, the original building no longer exists in any recognisable form, and has lain derelict and unused for many years. There is also a growing suspicion that section 29 is being abused and that planning applications are being made for the sole purpose of attracting compensation. I will speak more on this later.
I propose to repeal section 29, although, as with part II compensation, I propose to retain the right to recover payments already made where development is later permitted. The Bill will also repeal article 64 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. The Order provides for
"compensation for a refusal of consent for alteration or extension of a listed building where the alteration or extension does not constitute development for the purposes of requiring planning permission".
It makes little sense to pay compensation in respect of a control that was introduced to protect listed buildings. This is also the position in the rest of the United Kingdom, where similar provisions were repealed in 1991. There are no records of any payments under article 64.
The final purpose of the Bill is to correct a minor drafting error in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, a cross-referencing error in article 121 relating to rights of entry.
The application of the Bill as outlined in clause 4 provides that those parts repealing existing compensation provisions
"shall apply to applications for planning permission or listed building consent made on or after 23 October 2000",
which is the date on which the Bill was introduced in the Assembly. After the Bill becomes law, no claim for compensation will be paid when planning permission or listed building consent is refused for planning or listed building consent applications made on or after 23 October 2000. All other claims, including those already in the system, will be processed as normal under section 29 of the 1965 Act.
It may seem odd to introduce these provisions in this way. However, the reasons for doing so are justified. In Great Britain, where similar provisions were repealed in 1991, the legislation was made effective for planning or listed buildings consent applications received on or after the date on which that Bill was introduced in Parliament.
The purpose of such action is to avoid a situation in which the Department is inundated with applications between the date of introduction and the date on which Royal Assent is granted for the purpose of securing compensation before the Bill becomes law. I decided not to consult on the Bill to avoid a similar situation arising with such applications. I did, however, discuss it briefly with the Environment Committee. My Department’s liability under section 29 has increased significantly over the past year or so, and I believe that this is at least partly due to the fact that agents have been more active in generating business in this area because of an increased expectation that section 29 was to be repealed.
I am concerned that section 29 is being used, not as was intended in 1965 to compensate those who genuinely intended to develop their land, but rather for the sole purpose of attracting compensation. Agents telephoned my officials and expressed surprise, albeit a pleasant surprise, that section 29 remains in existence in Northern Ireland, although the equivalent section was repealed in the rest of the United Kingdom in 1991. Payment has been made where an applicant has openly admitted that he was seeking a refusal for his planning application. This situation is a drain on the public purse and must stop as soon as possible. As landowners have had 35 years to make an application under these provisions, clause 4 is reasonable and justified.
The main thrust of this Bill is to end a system of compensation that is unique to Northern Ireland, a system that was introduced 35 years ago and which has little relevance in 2000. It will also stop an increasing and unjustifiable drain on the public purse. I commend it to the Assembly.

Rev William McCrea: I thank the Minister for his statement. The House will welcome the general principles of the Bill, as outlined. The Bill is long overdue, as similar provisions in England and Wales were repealed in 1991, and this delay concerns me. While the Minister is not responsible for the past, many of the same officials are still in the Department, so why has it taken so long to introduce this legislation here? Why were people able to abuse the system from 1991 to 2000? How much compensation has been paid since 1991 that could have been saved to the Exchequer? The Bill will end this system of compensation. The Minister mentioned one specific case, but is there real evidence that the system was being abused?
The Bill corrects an error in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, and I am concerned that this was not corrected earlier. What has been the effect of this error, and why has it taken so long for it to be corrected?
Under section 29 of the 1965 Act, compensation could be reclaimed if development was later permitted. The intention is to retain that right to recover compensation. How often has this happened, and how much compensation has been recovered? The Minister should note that the Environment Committee will look at the Bill in detail during its Committee Stage. According to paragraph 19 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, consultation did not take place on this Bill, but I understand the Minister’s explanation, and I thank him for speaking to the Committee on this matter.
The Committee may feel that consultation is now required, which could extend the Committee Stage of this Bill. I will conclude by saying that the Environment Committee looks forward to working with officials and discussing the Bill further.

Mrs Joan Carson: I am prepared to give the legislation under discussion a general welcome, although I have misgivings. The Minister is proposing to make legislation in Northern Ireland more uniform with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. It will take a long time for the Assembly and the Executive Committee to undo the years of the lackadaisical low marking of direct rule. I commend the Minister of the Environment for his efforts to address this issue.
If there were doubts about the poor legacy left to the Province from direct rule, we can point to the fact that this legislation replicates provisions made for England and Wales almost a decade ago. The Assembly often laments 25 years of financial underinvestment and lack of planning in everything from the railway system to the Health Service. There was also underinvestment and a lack of planning in our legislative procedures. I am glad that we now have an opportunity to make a full contribution to that progress.
I regret that my contribution to this debate cannot be entirely positive. The shades of direct rule hover over this legislation. I am disappointed that there was no consultation on the Bill. The Department of the Environment was concerned that advance notice of the provisions might encourage pre-emptive compensation claims. I recognise the concern, but not disclosing information is not the best method a Department could employ in preparation for a heavier mailbag.

Mr Jim Wells: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Joan Carson: No. I am sorry, but I have visitors waiting.
This lack of consultation has excluded many people who have a right to be involved. I represent the largely rural constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and there are many in the rural community who have a view. They will feel slighted at having been ignored. There will also be many in the rural community who will interpret the proposed abolition of compensation in respect of planning applications for replacement dwellings as an attack on them.
I do not want to contradict my welcome of this replication of Westminster legislation, but I wish to ask for confirmation that Northern Ireland merits the level of replication proposed. In any claims procedure there will be a few rotten apples, but those who have made genuine claims should not be penalised as a result. There may be a reasonable explanation for this, although it is a concern. Perhaps the Minister would describe a typical claim made to his Department under the provisions of the Land Development Values (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1965. I would also appreciate the Minister’s explanation for his decision that the provisions will apply from the date of the Bill’s introduction to this Assembly, rather than from the appointed day on which the Bill will become law. Retrospective application may be considered underhand by some. It would be useful to have an indication of what savings might result from this decision.
In a similar vein, I note that the provisions giving rise to compensation are to be repealed, but not those allowing the Department to recover compensation already paid. I recognise that the circumstances in each case are different, but I feel it would be better to repeal the latter as well as the former. Otherwise, it will be hard to escape the perception that the Department is happy to apply one rule to itself and another to the general public. I generally welcome the Bill, although I would like some reassurance on the points I have raised.

Mr Alban Maginness: This Bill is very welcome, for it is a long-overdue tidying-up exercise. The fact that we are nine years behind Britain in this matter speaks volumes. I accept the points that Rev William McCrea, the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, made. This Bill underlines the value of having this Assembly and devolution in Northern Ireland. I ask Mr McCrea and certain of his Colleagues to reflect on that and to appreciate the value of this Assembly and the Good Friday Agreement. I hope that Mr McCrea will —

Mr Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is this in relation to the Bill?

Mr Alban Maginness: It certainly is in relation to the Bill.
I hope that Mr McCrea will reflect on the fact that a Minister is coming to this House with a significant piece of legislation tidying up an anomaly in the law which permits people to enter applications for planning permission in the hope of being refused and thereby securing compensation. That is clearly an abuse. Of course, there may well have been genuine applicants. However, the level of compensation claims indicates some — I believe, serious — element of abuse. I welcome the fact that the Minister has come to the House at the earliest opportunity with this legislation to prevent such abuse from continuing.
I take issue with Assembly Member Joan Carson, who has now left the House, in relation to the retrospective application of this Bill. It is quite proper that the Minister should choose the date of the introduction of the Bill to this House, for it prevents belated applications from people who know that this Bill is going through the House but hope to benefit. The Minister is right to give a retrospective date as a cut-off point. Otherwise, quite frankly, further abuse would have taken place.
Can the Minister be more precise about the amount of compensation paid out? He has told us how much compensation might be in the pipeline, but not what compensation has already been paid or what moneys have been recovered by the Department in those cases where development took place after compensation was granted to applicants.
I also commend to the House the fact that the Department, in its wisdom, when considering the various options, rejected the do-nothing scenario. Everyone will accept that.
The alternative was to relax planning policies on dwellings in the green belt, which would have been disastrous. Most of us who serve, or have served, on local councils know the difficulties this creates. As good environmentalists we wish to preserve as much as we can of the green belts around our urban areas. Therefore I congratulate the Department on its refusal to go down that road, which would not be for the common good. It would have assisted in the erosion of our green belts — something which should be resisted strenuously by the Department and the Assembly.
12.00
On behalf of the SDLP, I give a general welcome to this Bill, which is long overdue. I hope that the House will support it and prevent further abuses. Those who have already made applications will not be disadvantaged by this legislation. I congratulate the Minister on introducing it.

Mr Edwin Poots: Our party broadly welcomes the Bill. Members will not be getting from the DUP the confused messages that they got from Mrs Carson. She appeared to be supporting the Bill on one hand and criticising it on the other.
It would have been grossly incompetent of the Department to have failed to introduce the Bill retrospectively. Until Royal Assent was granted, there would have been a mass rush to make claims to the Department. If there has not been a significant number of claims over the past few years, there would have been in the coming months. The Minister, in his winding-up speech, could indicate how much money has been paid out since 1991 because a number of figures have been bandied about. There was £100,000 per year; the figure of £900,000 still in waiting, and we have the potential figure of £2 million. Has money been paid out in the past nine years, or has it been accepted that money will be paid to these people? Why is there still £900,000 in the pipeline?
The Committee will welcome the opportunity to look at this Bill, to scrutinise it closely and perhaps to make some modifications. I am particularly concerned about the item on listed buildings, and I want to examine that more closely, so that we do all that we can to ensure that our built heritage is maintained. Nothing in this Bill should deflect us from that. At present, the Bill adequately addresses this point, but further consideration will be needed at Committee Stage.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
Sinn Féin also welcomes the introduction of this Bill, and I assure the Minister that we will give our general support to the principles underlining his approach. We congratulate him for moving so quickly, given that there has been a considerable time lag in the North of Ireland in relation to that.
We are talking about trying to create a planning system that operates on the basis of equality and which is for the common good, and we are conscious of the need for the interrelated development of the whole island of Ireland.
To that extent we welcome the approach taken by the Minister. This legislation is being introduced with a view to stopping exploitation of the planning system by landowners. That exploitation mainly takes a form, as has been described, of applications being made for planning permission which is clearly not going to be granted, for listed buildings, for building in areas where green-belt policies apply, or for building in areas where no development is generally intended. Then these applications are used as a basis for compensation claims. We offer support to the strategy that was outlined by the Minister, in relation to both retrospection and clawback. It is a sensible and just approach, and it will attract support from across the Chamber.
Clearly, a review of the legislation is genuinely required by planners, so that they can make decisions in the common interest, and not with a view simply to minimising cost claims against the Department of the Environment. We are talking about reducing anomalies and bad law. Some issues have been mentioned by other Members already. We are not talking about abuse; we are talking about the exploitation of legal provisions. We need to know that what was, in effect, created out of the Matthew Report in 1965 was a charter for compensation which was exploited to the full.
The anomaly to which a number of Members have referred requires answers. Why was it allowed to continue for so long? What was the total cost to the public purse? We are talking about bad law, and it always was bad law. We have to welcome the steps that are being taken to change it. We congratulate the Minister and look forward to working with him through the Committee Stage on the detailed issues that we all want to address.
This is an opportunity to correct a wrong that was actually created, as it happens, by the former one-party system that operated here in Stormont. We can use this opportunity to demonstrate that there is a better way in the modern world that is going to be good for politics generally. We congratulate the Minister and offer him our support.
Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr David Ford: It is unfortunate perhaps that so many Members from the Environment Committee are speaking in this debate. I will not rehash everything that has been said by others, except to say that, on behalf my colleagues, I welcome the Bill. I hope my welcome to the Minister’s proposal is as extensive as that of the DUP, the SDLP and Sinn Féin and somewhat more generous than that from his constituency and party colleagues. Although there clearly are concerns about issues like consultation, I am certainly inclined to agree with what the Committee Chairperson said. We may now need to examine the issue of consultation in greater depth than the Committee, but the Minister was entirely right to put the date of 23 October 2000 into the draft Bill so that we can ensure that no further anomalies are allowed through.
There is a fundamental and legitimate question to be asked about why payments were ever made to people for not doing something that would have been detrimental to the public good. This does not apply just in the planning system; there are other areas that the Minister is concerned about. Questions need to be asked about other aspects of Government policy. Maybe we need a complete review, and perhaps we need to decide whether we might need something more like site value rating rather than the current rating system. However, I suspect that is a little beyond this Bill and its legitimate area.
On section 29, the Minister quoted a liability of possibly as much as £2 million, whereas his Department’s notes say £900,000. That is a fairly wide range, thought I accept that the area is a little bit unspecific. However, particularly given the limited budget his Department has and the difficulty which those of us as members of the Committee know exists with funding for the EHS and planning, can the Minister give us an assurance that he will seek to get back from the Minister of Finance any savings which will result from the passing of this Bill? Will those savings be spent for the benefit of his Department, and will he make a good case to the Minister of Finance for £2 million and not £900,000?

Mr Jim Wells: I strongly welcome the proposed amendment to the legislation although, like many others, I have to ask why we are sitting here nine years after equivalent amendments were made to legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom. I would be interested in the Minister’s answer to the question put by Mr Poots and other Members concerning the amount of taxpayers’ money poured into the pockets of landowners as a result of the delay in implementing the amendments.
The original legislation was an anachronism from the word go. For 35 years, speculative developers have submitted applications in the full knowledge that they would be refused in the hope of obtaining compensation. It reminds me of a similar piece of legislation, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which operated in England, Scotland and Wales. Under that Act, people could submit applications to destroy some ancient woodland, or drain some bog, even though they had no intention of doing so. It was their hope that the application would be turned down, thus triggering a huge amount of compensation. That brought the legislation into disrepute, and it was not adopted in the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.
It must be remembered that all applicants and developers have the benefit of full and open consultation during the formulation of development plans. They all come before public inquiries. If a developer’s land is zoned for a certain activity, and he objects to that, he has the opportunity — in a democratic fashion — to go to a public inquiry and make representations to the Department. Similarly, if an individual application is turned down, it may be taken to the Planning Appeals Commission, and generally they are given a fair hearing. Indeed, one quarter of all planning appeal decisions overturn the Planning Service’s original decision.
Therefore the Province has an equitable planning system. As politicians, we do not always agree with the decisions that are eventually reached, but we usually feel that everyone has received a fair hearing. Why, with all those opportunities, should someone have the right to have a second bite at the cherry and claim compensation?
One hundred thousand pounds strikes me as a considerable amount of money. It could be used to employ four extra staff in a divisional planning office. The Planning Service is under enormous pressure at the moment because of the upsurge in the number and complexity of applications. The last thing the Planning Service should be doing is handing out £100,000 per annum in compensation. I suspect that if the Department were to examine the actual cost of dealing with those applications, it would find that a considerable amount of money is being spent on legal costs and the assessment of compensation levels. Frankly, this amendment to the legislation could not have come quickly enough.
Mrs Carson made a point, and I have to say that her logic was extraordinary. She criticised the Minister — which was surprising in itself, because they are Colleagues from the same constituency and party — for including an element of retrospective application in the legislation. It is unfortunate that Mrs Carson has left the Chamber, because I would like her to think through the logic of her position. Consider what would have happened if the Minister had announced to the House a few weeks ago that he was minded to make this amendment to the legislation and that the opportunity of compensation due to the refusal of a planning application was to be removed.
There are interesting parallels with the Housing Executive’s decision a few years ago to withdraw improvement grants for a period because money was running out. There was a veritable stampede of applicants to the Housing Executive’s district offices to get applications in before the drawbridge was pulled up. If the Minister had made a similar announcement, hundreds of applications for planning permission would have been lodged with divisional planning offices throughout this Province, all with the express intention of being turned down in order to claim compensation.
I must declare an interest, which I can assure you is on the Members’ Register. I studied planning at Queen’s University, Belfast, and during my various attempts to develop a political career — most of which were unsuccessful, and I think this one is doomed as well — I attended public inquiries and lodged planning applications and so on on a freelance basis.
I have to confess that I did not handle any specific applications for compensation, although I came across several of them. Any good agent would have been going around all his clients in the Province urging them to get their applications in before the deadline for the withdrawal of compensation. The Planning Service, which is already under the most enormous pressure from the number of applications, could not have coped with such demand. It would have brought our divisional planning offices to a standstill, if it had happened.
The Minister is therefore absolutely right to apply this Bill from 21 October. He has been fair to the people who have already lodged applications. The dogs in the street, as far as planning circles are concerned, knew that this change was coming. Once the 1991 amendment was applied to the rest of the United Kingdom, it became obvious that we in Northern Ireland would eventually follow suit. There has been an increase in the number of applications under the existing provisions. Once it became apparent that changes would be made, the whole system would have ground to a halt. However, the Minister has enabled those who got their applications in before 21 October to proceed with their claims, and that is a very fair way of doing things.
None of us like the retrospective application of legislation. There are always enormous constitutional difficulties with doing so, but on this occasion the Minister is absolutely justified, particularly as he has informed us this morning that they have already assessed a liability of at least £2 million — and that is without stimulating demand. The Planning Service needs that £2 million to carry out its present work, particularly in the preparation of area plans. It does not need to pour that money into the pockets of speculative developers.
The Planning Service, by granting planning permission, adds enormously to the value of land in this Province. Recently I was shown a site near Ballynahinch where one could hardly graze a goat, and the individual had bought it with planning permission for £70,000. I cannot believe the prices that sites are now going for in green belt areas of the Province. Therefore it is ridiculous to let people have their cake and eat it. The provision whereby they can apply for planning permission, get a huge increase in the value of the land if it is granted, or claim compensation if it is not, is an anachronism that should have been abolished long ago.
However, the question we all want to ask this afternoon is how much taxpayers’ money has already gone down the drain due to the delay in implementing this legislation.

Mr Sam Foster: I thank all Members for their comments — the complimentary remarks and the brickbats — for I appreciate them all.
The Land Development Values (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1965, whose provisions formed the main plank of the repeals contained in the Bill, is a complex piece of legislation. In fact, when I looked at the Hansard Report of its introduction in 1965 I noted that one Member commented that
"if he had a choice between going to purgatory and reading this Bill, he would be very tempted to take the former choice".
Judging by the great interest shown today by Members, that sentiment does not apply to this Bill.
However, the strength of the Bill is not that it removes complex provisions from the statute book. Its strength lies in the fact that it removes provisions that have no relevance in the twenty-first century, and it brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK as regards the law on planning compensation.
Also, it confirms the long-established principle within a modern planning system that compensation is not paid for a refusal of planning permission, and, very importantly, it puts an end to an unnecessary drain on the public purse, which is showing no signs of abating.
I want to emphasise the fact — and good questions have been asked on the subject — that it is public moneys that we are dealing with here. We are the Government, and we have a responsibility to guard public moneys well. That is why I am taking the current steps.
I will try to answer Members’ questions. My officials will peruse Hansard, and if a question should be left out, they will certainly follow up with a written answer.
Mr McCrea asked about why there was a delay in following Great Britain. While similar provisions were repealed in Great Britain through the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, that Act introduced a package of changes to planning law concerning development control, enforcement, and compensation. It also provided for a plan-led system in Great Britain.
The former Department of Environment started work to replicate this package for Northern Ireland, but I understand that this work was interrupted on several occasions to consider further changes being talked about in GB, particularly those concerning the removal of crown immunity from planning law. However, when the matter was brought to my attention and I saw the amount of money involved, I acted immediately and asked for these repealing provisions to be separated from the package and included in a Bill for the Assembly.
I am not sure how much compensation has been paid since 1991, but it is in the region of £1 million.
Mr McCrea asked what effect the drafting error in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 has had. Legal advice states that it has had no practical impact and that it is just a matter of correcting the error.
I was asked how many cases had been recovered and what the value was. I have no figures to hand, but £500,000 is believed to have been recovered.
Evidence of abuse is largely anecdotal, but officials have received phone calls from agents expressing surprise that these provisions are still in place. This indicates more interest in compensation than in planning.
Mrs Carson asked for an example of a typical claim for compensation. A compensation claim starts when a planning application is made to the Department based on payments already made. The application is usually for the reconstruction of any building that existed in 1965, or during the five years before that date, but had been destroyed. Typically, the original building would no longer exist in recognisable form, and in many cases there would be no indication that it ever existed. Typically, the application would be to rebuild on the green belt. Under the Department’s existing policies, the application would be refused. It would be regarded as an existing use development under schedule 1 to the Land Development Values (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1965. Once the application is refused, there would be an entitlement to compensation under section 29 of that Act. The case would be referred to the Valuation and Lands Agency, who act as our agents in these cases. They would negotiate with the applicant, whose claim would be based on the difference between the value of the land with planning permission and its value without it. There are significant sums involved, and recently we agreed the value of a claim at £275,000. That is a great deal of money, and it is the reason I intend to retain the provision in the Land Development Values (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 to recover any compensation paid where scheduled development is later permitted on the site.
Mrs Carson also asked why the provisions should not be applied retrospectively. In Great Britain similar provisions were repealed in 1991, and the new provisions took effect from the date of the Bill’s introduction in Parliament. That was to prevent the Department from being inundated with planning applications to gain compensation between the date of introduction and the date of Royal Assent. This is justifiable as there is growing evidence that applications are not being made because there is a desire to develop the land, but for the purpose of gaining compensation.
The cut-off date of 23 October 2000 does not apply to compensation claims but to applications for planning permission or listed building consent. Any compensation claim made before 23 October will be processed in the normal way. The process is deemed to have started when an application is made.
Mr Alban Maginness’s question about the preciseness of the compensation already paid was answered in my reply to Mr McCrea.
Mr McLaughlin’s and Mr Poots’s questions were also answered in my reply to Mr McCrea.
Mrs Carson and Mr Ford asked what the savings would be if the Bill is introduced. It is difficult to quantify that, but the figure of £2 million suggests that there would be significant savings in the future.
Mr Ford referred to the difference between the £900,000 and the £2 million referred to in the statement. The figure of £2 million reflects the updated position.
Jim Wells — and I thank him for his complimentary remarks — also asked how much compensation has been paid. As far as I am aware, that has been answered.
I hope I have addressed the Members’ questions satisfactorily. I am sorry if any questions or points have been overlooked. My officials will scrutinise Hansard, and I will write to Members whose questions have not been answered. I thank Members for their interest.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Planning (Compensation, etc) Bill [NIA 7/00] be agreed.
The sitting was suspended at 12.25pm.
On resuming —

Biomedical Sciences

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I beg to move
That the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety take immediate steps to redress the staffing inadequacies in the biomedical sciences in the Health Service, initiate a manpower planning exercise to consider the staffing levels, terms and conditions of employment of staff in these areas, and establish arrangements to address the needs of the Health Service in Northern Ireland in regard to this area of her responsibility.
This motion stands in my name and in that of Mr Berry.
The role of the biomedical scientist in the delivery of a fast and efficient Health Service is rarely acknowledged. The contribution made by this body of highly qualified professionals goes largely unappreciated because, despite the enormity and complexity of their demanding workload and the significant ramifications for the running of today’s Health Service, where patient care is paramount, they remain without the public arena.
I present this motion in an effort to bring not only due recognition but appropriate financial remuneration to this hitherto silent voice of the Health Service. There is no room for ambiguity, because without the proper financial and manpower resources a crisis will inevitably occur in this sector. This House should take on board the very real probability of a crisis in this particular area. It is both a local and a UK-wide problem. Indeed, the situation has already caused serious repercussions in Wales. In May of this year, Llandudno Hospital was forced to close its accident and emergency department due to a shortage of biomedical science (BMS) staff, and it is not impossible that that will happen in the health sector in Northern Ireland.
If something is not done to redress this situation now, we will have to ask ourselves if we can seriously allow this situation to be repeated in Northern Ireland, especially as we face another winter. We all know the difficulties that were experienced in the Health Service last year, and these could be compounded by the ongoing difficulties in the biomedical sector.
A survey commissioned by the Institute of Biomedical Scientists (IBMS) in December 1999 warned that 88% of NHS laboratories are considered to be below strength in staff numbers. Over three quarters of laboratories surveyed reported the highest staff turnover rate at the medical laboratory scientific officer I grade, particularly in the 20 to 30 age group. Many had made the decision to seek alternative employment — for a number of reasons. Sixty-one per cent of those surveyed during exit interviews gave low pay as their main reason for leaving. A further 19% cited stressful working conditions, 18% cited low morale and lack of career status, and 10% wanted a career change.
That is a terrible indictment of this profession. If this were happening in some other professions in Northern Ireland, there would be an outcry, and people would be climbing the walls and doing all kinds of things to try to rectify it, but not in this case.
Just because these people are conscientious and carry on their jobs without spouting or putting up flags or crying wolf, they are taken for granted. It has to stop now. These people must not be taken for granted any more. They must be given the proper recognition and pay for the job they do. The drift away from this sector of the medical profession must be halted. How long will it take until the stress and the low pay sends this particular service into free fall?
Two principal conclusions can be drawn from the IBMS survey. First, a serious recruitment problem exists at medical laboratory scientific officer (MLSO) grade I level. Secondly, retention of trained staff is fast becoming a more serious problem than recruitment — we get them but, because of the conditions they have to work in we cannot keep them. The Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union confirmed this when it simultaneously lobbied Westminster, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies in April of this year. After four years of university training, and with a honours degree, a trainee MLSO can expect to earn £9,726 per annum. This is just over half of what is earned by a nurse with an equivalent qualification. A comparative starting salary for this particular science graduate in private industry, or in the Civil Service, is £15,500 per annum, while their BMS counterparts in the Irish Republic can expect to take home a starting wage packet of £IR 18,365 per annum. There is some difference between £15,900 and £9,726.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Does the Member accept that the standards of living in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are different, that people in the Republic are in a higher tax bracket and that people in the United Kingdom are probably, just slightly, better off?

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I accept Mr Hutchinson’s point.
During that four-year degree course one year is spent in unpaid placement in a hospital laboratory. University fees of £525 must still be paid, and upon completing their degree course many graduate trainees are still forced to supplement their income with a second job, or by claiming family credit in the case of someone who has two children and is the sole earner. How would Members here feel if after four years of hard slog at university, and giving a year free in the sector, their starting salary was £9,726 per year? It is little wonder that tomorrow’s health professionals are being lured away with promises of greater wealth elsewhere.
I take this opportunity to commend the work currently being undertaken by the Northern Ireland branch of the IBMS and the two universities in trying to make placements more attractive to local students. I also commend the Welsh model whereby the Department of Health provides annual bursaries for 30 biomedical placements. In England and Wales the non-medical, education and training (NMET) levy will be extended next April to include biomedical scientists for the first time.
Will similar provision be made in Northern Ireland, or will we once again be left behind as others forge a way forward? Disillusionment is commonplace, as are graduates who have studied for a career in biomedical science only to find they cannot survive on the salary offered. Their value and commitment to hospital services, private clinics and general practitioners is little known and seldom appreciated outside their own profession. Biomedical scientists feel themselves undervalued by the public they serve and the Health Service that employs them.
The Health Service in Northern Ireland is facing a crisis in pathology, another health provision thrown into turmoil. The investigations carried out by biomedical scientists play an important part in modern medical care. Without them, the evaluation of effective treatments and research and diagnosis into the causes and cures of diseases would not be possible.
I call upon the House to support this motion.

Rev William McCrea: I thank Mr Roger Hutchinson and Mr Berry for bringing such an important  issue before the Assembly. It will do the Assembly good to give due consideration and support to the motion.
Biomedical science has undoubtedly been the Cinderella section of the Health Service in recent years — a situation which must not be permitted to continue as these professionals work unstintingly behind the scenes for the well-being of the community. Their efforts, work and professionalism have a great impact upon our return to health and strength. I am sure that few of us here will live out our lives without enjoying the professional service that is given by biomedical scientists in the hospitals throughout our Province.
It is time that society spoke out on behalf of those forgotten professionals. As an Assembly, we ought to demand fair remuneration for their excellence and dedication. I was somewhat taken back by the intervention of the Member for North Belfast, Mr Billy Hutchinson, because there is a vast difference between £9,420 and £IR18,365, even taking into account the different tax brackets between Northern Ireland, as a part of the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland.
It is absolutely ridiculous for professionals, after years of education and laboratory training, to earn only £9,000 per annum for the service they give us. No Member of this Assembly would accept that as acceptable remuneration for the work he does. I also believe that, because they are in a caring profession, biomedical scientists and other Health Service professionals are often taken for granted because of their dedication.
If evidence were needed to prove that these scientists are the Cinderella service of the health profession, one has only to consider what happened last Friday at Antrim Hospital. I was present when United States Senator George Mitchell opened the new renal unit there. Imagine the impact that that unit will have on the respective disciplines of biochemistry and haematology at the Antrim laboratory. It is interesting — and disgraceful — that biomedical scientists were not represented among the various dignitaries present. The other professions were, but, given the way in which that unit impacts on the biomedical science profession, it would have been appropriate to ensure that it was properly represented. That establishes my point that they are the Cinderella of the Health Service and have not been treated with the respect that they deserve.
The role that biomedical scientists perform in the delivery of a fast and efficient Health Service in Northern Ireland deserves the support of every Member of this Assembly. A laboratory team in a reasonably sized pathology department undertakes approximately one million tests each year. Biomedical scientists deliver a premium healthcare service to the Province’s major acute and tertiary referral hospitals, private clinics and doctors’ surgeries.
Of course, they are behind the scenes. When patients go into hospital they will see that the nursing profession is very evident, and rightly so. They will see doctors and consultants and be encouraged by their presence in the hospital. But without the depth of commitment and the contribution made by biomedical scientists in our hospitals, our Health Service would be completely deficient. They have been systematically ignored for too long.
Again this year, biomedical scientists, who remain without the pay review body, have received pay increases lower than those awarded to comparable staff within the pay review competence. Why have they not been brought under the pay review body? Why is their importance not accepted in the way that that of nurses, doctors and consultants is accepted? We hear them eulogised, rightly, for the work they do. They are on the front line; but without the support, experience and professionalism of those who back them up in their diagnosis and treatment, the health and safety of our population would be greatly impaired.
I will not labour the poor financial rewards for people who have entered a profession as graduates. Much was said on that point by Mr Roger Hutchinson. I could make comparisons with many other fields of employment in the private sector. It is right to look at them and consider that people with the same qualifications are employed in industry earning salaries vastly different from those in public service, particularly n the National Health Service. They have the same qualifications and have gone through the same education system, but their experience appears to carry very little weight when it comes to remuneration.
It is estimated that the shortfall at the cutting edge will be about 1,250 positions by the end of the year. That will place existing staff under further extreme stress and will be to the detriment of the Health Service and of staff training, and could ultimately result in a failure to meet guidelines laid down by quality assurance and quality control systems.
That latter point has exacerbated existing problems. More and more chief MLSOs spend a quarter of their working week tackling the mountain of paperwork associated with clinical pathology accreditation, which has increased and is becoming more rigorous as new targets are set. Health and safety regulations, quality assurance programmes, continuing professional developments only add to an already heavy burden, and these people are then insulted with a paltry sum of money.
Almost 17% of MLSO grade 1 staff left the biomedical profession in 1999, and, of those, it is estimated that 56% bid farewell to the Health Service altogether. Why is this happening? The factors which contributed to this shift away from the profession were deemed to be the poor level of pay, a poor public image and a general lack of career prospects. Fortunately, a crisis in pathology has so far been avoided, owing to the good employer/employee relationship between staff and the trust, as I witnessed in Antrim Hospital. However, will that relationship last and stand the test when employees can move to the private sector where they will be properly paid? We may respect the profession, we may utter many fine words about it, but we should remember that all the Assembly’s eulogies will never pay their bills and provide them with the necessary financial reward for the work they have done.
Important lessons must be learned from the mainland, and the present inability to recruit qualified and competent staff for what is a highly responsible job must be addressed. Why would they stay? They are paid a paltry sum, and their profession is not respected in the manner it deserves. I trust that through the Assembly we will be able to make some improvement and make further representation, not only in Northern Ireland but also to the Minister of Health in the United Kingdom Parliament, for proper recognition to be given to these professions.
I welcome the announcement this week by the Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn, that additional funding will be made available for training posts for scientists and technicians in the Health Service. Will this apply to Northern Ireland? Will we lag behind as England forges towards a resolution of impending crisis, and ultimately avoids it? Are we going to be left behind?
I congratulate the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union and the Northern Ireland branch of the Institute of Biomedical Science for improving public awareness of the important role played by biomedical scientists in the Health Service. Until recently, the pay and conditions of these professionals were swept under the carpet. No one was willing to listen; no one was willing to hear their grievance or what they were saying; they were regarded as being behind closed doors. When a grievance cannot be aired when the patient comes in, who really cares? As long as the work is being done, who really cares about the remuneration of the professionals doing it? The Assembly owes it to those professionals to care.
We can show that we care for the caring profession by making representations at the highest level to ensure an appropriate level of remuneration. Pay and conditions for those professionals should be brought into the remit of the pay review body to ensure appropriate scrutiny. The Assembly would not accept anything less for itself, so why should it accept something less for those professionals?
We are now aware of the problem. By accepting the motion, we will show that we acknowledge its existence. Not only is it our duty to gauge the extent of the problem, it is our duty to those professionals to do something about it. Pay anomalies must be removed. I hope that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will consider specifically the pay and working conditions of biomedical scientists and not go off on a tangent to consider broader NHS salaries.
Biomedical scientists are vital to quality patient care in Northern Ireland. The motion gives the Assembly an opportunity to recognise the valuable contribution of those working in a hitherto forgotten wing of the Health Service. I thank my Colleagues and Friends for bringing the matter before the Assembly. We can show the strength of our feelings by adopting the motion unanimously.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I accompanied several Colleagues on a recent visit to the Royal Maternity Hospital. We watched the biomedical professionals at work and took the opportunity to speak to them. Very soon I realised that, although some of them do not come into direct contact with patients and the general public, they play a vital role in the prevention and treatment of illness. They carry out complex blood tests, separate plasma from red cells, check heart functions, and help to install defibrillators. Biomedical scientists are essential to the successful running of our hospitals, but because they are demoralised, we are losing them to the private sector, where they can earn significantly more money.
Poor pay is the main cause of the problem and, unless we address it, the situation can only get worse. Pay awards for medical technical officers, speech and language therapists, clinical scientists and many other professionals are negotiated outside the pay review body, which sets the annual pay award for other health professionals such as doctors, nurses and physiotherapists. Without exception, that latter group is offered higher pay awards each year. The differential between the groups is about 30%. I am not saying that doctors and nurses are paid too much, but that biomedical staff are grossly underpaid. Entry qualifications for professional groups inside and outside the pay review body are similar; often, the work is similar.
I urge the Minister to do what she can to address the problem and ensure that the unfairness in the different systems is acknowledged and addressed. This is a critical time in the life of our National Health Service. We are in review mode, considering staffing levels, and we must get it right. We cannot afford to lose any of our committed, well-trained staff. In the past, it was decided that we did not need so many nurses, so we got rid of them: now, we are desperately trying to attract them back. We must not do that with our biomedical staff. We must address the issue of poor pay immediately.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
I support the motion, although I am a bit disappointed that it addresses only the biomedical scientists and not the medical technical officers and others in the profession. First of all, I take issue with Billy Hutchinson. I do not think that the difference between £9,000 and £IR18,000 can be compensated for either by the punt differential or by the tax differential.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: The point that I was making was that we need to compare like with like. I was not saying that these people do not deserve more money. I believe that they do. I would like people to understand what I was saying. I was saying that if we are going to compare this with the Republic of Ireland, then we need to take all of those things into consideration — the punt exchange, tax and the standard of living.

Mr John Kelly: One of the things that was pointed out to us by the biochemists in Antrim Hospital and in the Royal Victoria Hospital was the drift from those places to the South of Ireland. People are making up their minds as to whether the differential is good or bad, and they think it is good elsewhere. However, that does not address the issue. The issue is that these are people, a LeasCheann Comhairle, who are at the very engine room of a hospital. No surgeon can perform an operation until he has a report from the lab. They are at the very engine room of the hospital, yet they have not only bad pay conditions but work, in some instances — not in Antrim Hospital, I must confess, but perhaps in the RVH — in conditions that are unsuitable. In some cases they are working with new machinery for which they have not been properly trained. It is handed to them, and there is no compensation at all for taking on new technology.
The issue, a LeasCheann Comhairle, is that the medical officers, the speech and language therapists, the clinical scientists and many other professionals have their pay award negotiated outside the pay review body. As Carmel Hanna said, we are not complaining about doctors or nurses or physiotherapists. We are saying that there should be parity in the Health Service. People who are performing a critical and crucial function in that service ought to be paid a commensurate salary.
Glaxo Wellcome plc, for example, is paying £5,000 more as a starting salary than the hospitals do. These people go into a hospital rather than into industry because they have a sense of dedication — in a way, it is their vocation. They suffer because of that. The very sensitive and crucial nature of their role in the Health Service means that they are not prone to taking industrial action.
Consider the different disciplines: histology, cytology, microbiology, virology, haematology, biochemistry, immunology — all disciplines with which they deal and which are critical to the life of the patient. A surgeon can make a mistake, and it can be fatal. If a biochemist makes a mistake, it can be more than fatal — it can be detrimental to the confidence of the whole hospital. They have a very sensitive role to play in the hospital services.
In the submission, a senior biochemist said
"I feel really guilty about asking staff to work so long and so hard when I can offer them nothing in terms of training, advancement, career prospects. I have never been so pessimistic about the future of the service. We are close to a time when staff losses will finally overload those left, to the point when they all decamp."
That is, go elsewhere.
"They only stay through loyalty" —
through loyalty, the theme that came through from the people we met both in Antrim Hospital and in the RVH.
"Recent leavers have proved to me that ANY of my staff could get a much better job with 50% more pay without difficulty."
There are poor starting salaries and static promotion prospects. There are virtually no promotion prospects in this field at the moment, a LeasCheann Comhairle. There are unreasonable demands for more qualifications, and graduates reaching the career grade are so badly paid that they never trigger the level at which they have to pay back their student loans. Perhaps we could make a salient point there, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
This is a list of issues that biochemists have put before the Assembly for its consideration. They do not want knee-jerk reactions but considered responses to their working conditions.
Biomedical scientists and MTO grades must be considered by the pay review body. The pay of those grades of staff must be raised to bridge the 30% differential. Can the Minister assure me that staff will be fully involved in the pathology review that is underway at present?

Rev Robert Coulter: I thank Mr Roger Hutchinson and Mr Berry for bringing this motion to the Assembly so that we can have a full debate on it.
We are by now aware of the importance of laboratories to the National Health Service. The importance of this work is illustrated by the fact that a wrong decision in the laboratory could lead to a wrong decision by a consultant which could cause the premature death of a patient.
There is an inverse ratio in salary — we have been told about how starting salaries after four years in university and an honours degree compare with starting salaries in the industrial and private sectors. Something is wrong with a system that allows people who are crucial to decision making in the system to be treated in this way.
Where does the equality agenda apply in this case? These people are so poorly paid in comparison with other employees at the same level in the system. It is therefore up to the Assembly to use its power to publicise the need for the Department to take immediate action to remove the salary anomaly. Above all, we do not want another crisis in the Health Service. If, in the future, laboratories were to close down because of the action of the assistants, the haemorrhage of staff would lead to a crisis, and consultants would not receive the expert and technical advice they need. Nevertheless, we admire the dedication of biomedical staff, and we do not foresee a situation in which this would happen readily. We must therefore address the existence of this problem in the biomedical science profession and look at it very seriously.
I ask the Minister to ensure that staff are deeply involved in the forthcoming review. I hope that this motion will be carried unanimously and that something will soon be accomplished to address the wrong that is in the system.

Mr David Ford: I very much support the sentiments which have already been expressed in the Chamber today. I was one of those who visited Antrim hospital laboratory in August. I met members of the staff there and saw some of their work. Although I have previously worked in the health and personal social services sector, I found myself to have been shockingly unaware of what goes on behind the scenes in the laboratories. Given the range of their duties, the skill and professionalism employed and the pressure and the speed with which work is done, employees’ salaries are an utter disgrace.
Indeed, it has been suggested that the MLAs (Medical Laboratory Assistants) in Antrim Hospital probably deserve a higher salary than the MLAs in this building.
I was in the accident and emergency department of Antrim Hospital a few weeks later with a member of my family, late on a Saturday night. A blood sample was taken, two or three tubes disappeared, and a result sheet came back very quickly — produced by somebody who had almost certainly done a full day’s work and was also there for a full night. Are these reasonable working conditions? As a social worker, I know what it is like to be on duty for one night in 17 and to have to make difficult decisions in the early hours of the morning. MSLOs may well be working one night in three. We need to consider their working conditions.
In September I asked the Minister two questions, which were answered on 13 October. The first question was on gender and equality in staff planning. Today the Minister may be asked to comment on the work being done under the Opportunity Now campaign and to look at staffing. In November focus groups are due to meet to discuss issues such as career development, pay and work/life balance — issues which come under the Minister’s responsibilities and on which the groups will want a comment. I am interested to hear her report on the 24 October meeting, which looked at equality and workforce planning issues.
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have to co-operate on UK-wide issues, such as staff gradings. If a new system of proper job evaluation is introduced, I hope the Minister can tell us how quickly it will be implemented. Speed is of the essence.
My second question concerned early retirement, vacancies, staff recruitment and staff retention. Unfortunately, the Minister responded that the information was not readily available and could only be extracted at a disproportionate cost. I do not want to be the cause of disproportionate costs, but surely the Minister accepts that there are major problems in the laboratories and that something has to be done.
The Minister’s response in October led me to believe that some work is being done locally, but clearly much more needs to be done. I want to draw to her attention page 33 of the draft Programme for Government. The first action bullet point under 3.4 (modernising and improving hospital and primary-care services) refers to
"recruiting additional nursing and other front-line staff".
There it is in a nutshell. We need the dedication of front-line staff, but after all the years of expressing concern, even the Programme for Government makes no reference to support staff, because they are not visible. I hope the Minister ensures that the final version of the Programme for Government recognises that there are equally important staff behind the scenes.
Can the Minister tell us what will happen on the pay review body? Is she using her powers of persuasion with her Colleagues?
I congratulate the Members who brought forward this motion, and I offer my support.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I am delighted that we finally have a motion dealing with the issue of low pay. The concept of poor pay is probably relative. If you ask anyone about his pay, he will always say that he wants more. However, today we are definitely talking about low pay — the facts speak for themselves. A medical technical officer, on scale one, earning approximately £10,418, is entitled to family credit if he or she has two children and is a sole earner. It is ironic that an arm of government is giving top-up funding to an arm of the public sector.
The Department for Social Development is paying money to the Department of Health for salaries that are too low for people to live on. That is at the crux of the matter. I do not want to repeat what other people have said. The three key issues have been well stated: the profession is poorly paid by any standards; it can be seen to be poorly paid when the salaries of staff are compared with the salaries of staff elsewhere with equivalent qualifications; and it can be seen to be poorly paid when its earnings are compared with the earnings of similarly qualified staff in the private sector. Other Members have said that people are literally walking away from their jobs.
Having lectured in the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences at the University of Ulster for 20years, I know that many students do four-year degrees. I recall the famous equal pay case taken by the language and speech therapists. It is important to highlight the fact — MrFord referred to this — that the vast majority of those people were women, and that was why they were earning such low pay. They were doing four-year degrees, they were highly qualified, and they undertook difficult work placements during the summer. When the rest of our students were getting holiday work, those students had to take placements in order to fulfil the requirements for their degrees. They were studying for qualifications well above those of the average undergraduate.
Why were they doing this, when they knew that they were entering a profession — and biomedical science is similar to this — that paid so poorly? Because they wanted to. Many of them saw it as a vocation — they wanted to help others. Some did it because of their scientific backgrounds, and others because they wanted to work with children — this is similar to what happens in nursing.
We have put nursing on the agenda, and it is important to remind Members that although we hear about nurses being recruited back into the Health Service, they are not getting paid a penny at the moment. Those who are returning are being retrained in the Health Service and taking courses through the Beeches Management Centre, doing placements in hospitals and geriatric wards. They are state registered nurses, and for at least six months they are not getting a single penny.
Would we do that to any other profession? Just because people have vocations and work in the Health Service, should we treat them like that?
The second point that I want to make is that it is important that we have introduced job evaluation schemes. The poor old speech and language therapists took something like 10 years to fight that equal-pay case. My children were tiny when it began, and they are now teenagers. I used to assess the progress of the case against the age of the children. It took them years to fight that equal-pay case. Eventually they got it. But why did they have to go to Europe to get the equivalent of what others in the Health Service — equally qualified people — were earning? That group is one of the professions still outside the remit of the pay review body.
We should not put this in the hands of our current Minister, who inherited the system from a former Health Minister. According to the manufacturing, science and finance union, the reason they were excluded from the pay review body was political. If it was a political decision, let us address and rectify it politically.
The Minister may be able to tell us something about the Agenda for Change, under which these job evaluation programmes have been introduced. A 30% differential between similarly qualified individuals is not good enough. Biomedical scientists are getting 30% less than those covered by the remit of the pay review body are. It may have something to do with the Central Whitley Council versus the pay review body. It would be good for biomedical scientists to have the recommendations of the Central Whitley Council implemented. That is another problem.
Has the Minister discussed this matter with the unions which represent the staff to see if there is anything that we can do in the interim? The Agenda for Change will not be in place until 2003. We have three more years of pain and low pay. In the meantime, those highly qualified individuals are going to walk away because the private sector is encroaching more and more on their jobs. As MsHanna said, we will end up with the same crisis that we had with nursing, with highly qualified individuals going off to agencies rather than staying in the National Health Service. That is the last thing that we want.
We want to retain that skill, to have that continuity of experience. If you are mixing solutions and chemicals that go into people’s bodies, you need to get it right. It can go wrong, as we know from experience. It can cause fatalities. Midwives and biomedical scientists take people’s lives in their hands every day, so let us remunerate them for that level of stress. Their actions determine people’s well-being. I do not want to exaggerate, but we need to put it into proportion. We should begin job evaluation schemes that list the type of job and evaluate it accordingly.
I am pleased that the Minister has attended this debate, though some might not regard it as the most major issue, given hospital reviews, the whole issue of primary care, the reorganisation of the Health Service, and so on. It is important that biomedical scientists, and others in allied professions, know that the Assembly took the time to debate this, with the Minister here to hear the range of arguments.
Between now and 2003, when I believe that the job evaluation programmes are to be completed — and there is a mission to bring them back under the pay review body — how will the Minister address the issues of recruitment and morale? On the current pay levels, biomedical scientists feel like second-class citizens in Northern Ireland, where we talk so much about equality of opportunity.

Mr Wilson Clyde: I support the motion and commend my Colleagues for bringing it to the House.
I would not have known of the contribution that biomedical scientists make to the efficient running of today’s Health Service if I had not seen at first hand the excellent work being carried out when I visited the laboratories at Antrim Hospital in May. Whether we realise it or not, we all depend on this sector of the Health Service. The lives of patients depend on the skills of these trained professionals. They play a crucial role in hospital admissions and many other aspects of healthcare, particularly in the delivery of cancer services, which is all too often underestimated, and they get little financial reward.
Degree-qualified medical laboratory scientific officers, who carry out vital work, including screening for meningitis and cancer cells, can expect to take home salaries as low as £9,726 per year. An equivalent position within the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has a starting salary ranging from £10,977 to £19,669 depending on qualifications and experience. The trend towards seeking higher paid jobs in the Irish Republic must also be addressed, as valuable graduates are lost to industry and health provision in the South.

Mr Jim Shannon: Does the Member agree that most of the problems in sampling are caused by underfunding and staff shortage? Another problem for patients whose samples are sent in for testing is that those tests now take 15 days instead of the previous three to five days. A sample is only valid for a certain period. Does the Member agree that, while we recognise the good work of the staff, we need substantial funding and more staff to make things better for the patient as well?

Mr Wilson Clyde: I agree wholeheartedly.
The exclusion of laboratory staff and others from the remit of the pay review body in 1983 has led to consistently inferior pay rises. Since 1984, pay rises to doctors and nurses, who are under the pay review body, have been 30% higher than awards made to similarly qualified staff not covered by the pay review body. I acknowledge that this situation is being addressed, but can we afford to wait three years for these changes to happen? I fear not.
There is evidence to indicate that a serious shortage of biomedical scientists exists, with almost half of the advertised vacancies in NLCO grade I remaining vacant. Despite the low levels of pay, these dedicated individuals strive to give a professional service to the sick, the needy, and the infirm. It is now time to assess this problem properly. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should consider that, without action being taken, positions left vacant by those retiring after long careers may not be filled.
Biomedical scientists are essential to health care provision in Northern Ireland, and it is time that their valuable contribution, professionalism and commitment were recognised and rewarded. I support the motion.

Mr Alan McFarland: I visited the Royal Victoria Hospital and was startled by the situation for biomedical scientists there. I employ a very valiant lady in my constituency office to type and answer the telephone, and I pay her more than these fully qualified scientists with honours degrees get when they begin employment. That is unsatisfactory.
I was also amazed at the technical advances to be seen in hospitals. One scientist was operating a machine and was interpreting the data, giving the consultant what amounted to a diagnosis. That seems to be the way forward. Technical advances are making such rapid progress that biomedical scientists will increasingly be the ones who interpret data for consultants. Consultants will make the final decisions, but the information on which they make those decisions will come from the scientists.
It is strange that biomedical scientists are getting less than folk doing clerical jobs. The situation is nigh to scandalous, and I ask the Minister to examine and address the issue. I support the motion.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: A LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Uasal Hutchinson agus leis an Uasal Berry as an tsaincheist seo a thabhairt go hUrlár an Tí. Tá áthas orm go raibh mé in ann freastal ar an díospóireacht agus chuir mé suim, agus mé ag éisteacht leis an díospóireacht, sna pointí a luaigh Teachtaí.
I thank Mr R Hutchinson and Mr Berry for bringing this issue to the House. I am pleased to have been able to attend the debate, and I have listened with interest to the points made. I endorse Members’ views on the importance of this particular group, and all other groups of laboratory staff. I recognise that good pathology underpins modern medicine and agree wholeheartedly with the fact that it will increasingly play an important role in the development of the high-technology medicine of the future. I agree that, as one Member put it,
"they play an absolutely vital role in the prevention and treatment of illness."
I would like to comment on the main points of the motion. First, as regards terms and conditions of employment, the position is that medical, laboratory and scientific officers in the health and personal social services here receive the same rates of remuneration as their colleagues in the NHS in England, Scotland and Wales. There is a statutory requirement to maintain parity with the rates agreed by the relevant Whitley Council.
Points were raised in this respect, both in the motion and in Mr Hutchinson’s opening speech. The pay for medical laboratory scientific officers has long been recognised as an issue, and there has been a sustained campaign to improve the position.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
In June this year agreement was reached on a three-year pay deal for laboratory staff. The agreement covers the period 1999 - 2001. It not only provides for increases to basic salaries, based on the underlying rate of inflation over the period of the agreement, but also seeks to resolve difficulties relating to the recruitment and retention of laboratory staff, particularly for those in the early stages of their careers.
Consequently, the agreement contains provisions to target additional resources at pay scales for new entrants to address recruitment and retention problems. These measures include shortening the pay scale for trainee medical laboratory scientific officers by dropping the lowest six points and extending the maximum of the scale upwards by one point. In the case of medical laboratory scientific officers, the bottom point of the pay scale was removed and the maximum extended upwards by one point.
In the longer term, as many Members have pointed out, proposals are being developed by all four Health Departments, in conjunction with staff representatives, on a new system for determining pay and other conditions of service based on job evaluation. Prof McWilliams asked about interim arrangements between now and the Agenda for Change coming through in approximately2003. There is, as I have stated, a statutory obligation to maintain parity with salary levels in the NHS. Significant changes have already been made to pay scales, and consideration is now being given to further measures to improve pay levels, recruitment, retention and morale. This is being done jointly with staff, but is at an early stage, making it impossible to predict the final outcome at present.
Rev William McCrea raised the question of membership of the pay review body. One of the outcomes of the Agenda for Change pay modernisation programme to which I have referred may well be that membership of the Pay Review Body will be extended to include professional and technical staff. However, it is impossible at present for me to say what the outcome will be.
Mr Roger Hutchinson, Rev Robert Coulter, Mr J Kelly and others referred to the anomaly in salary between medical laboratory scientific officers and other grades. The pay modernisation programme, Agenda for Change, is designed to reward all jobs appropriately, based on an agreed system of job evaluation. The fundamental objective of pay modernisation is to ensure a comprehensive and agreed job evaluation system to assess the rate of each job, and to ensure a fair and equitable pay system throughout the NHS and the health and personal social services here.
The question of timescale was raised by David Ford and again by Prof Monica McWilliams. I refer Members to the statement by the joint secretaries to the recently published Agenda for Change. I can supply a copy of it to Members. Progress continues to be made on a pilot job evaluation scheme that will include social services posts here. It aims to benchmark jobs throughout the NHS and the health and personal social services to assist in the development of agreed job evaluation schemes. It is not possible at present to outline the exact timetable involved, but I will supply a copy of that statement.
Such a system, under the Agenda for Change, if agreed by other Health Ministers and myself, would provide an opportunity for the pay of laboratory staff to be examined to ensure they are rewarded fairly for their responsibilities. I know that staff in biomedical sciences and, indeed, in other pathology disciplines, have expressed concerns about recruitment and retention difficulties, and I agree that effective workforce planning will underpin any exercise seeking to address them. My Department is currently examining ways of improving our workforce planning mechanisms.
A more immediate initiative is a review of pathology services — an issue referred to by John Kelly and Rev Robert Coulter. This review has already started. We are in the early stages of a scoping study examining a range of issues, such as the number of laboratories, staffing and the utilisation of equipment.
This stage, which is expected to be completed within the next few months, will lay the foundation for the later stages of the review. These later stages will assess how pathology services can be modernised to meet demands over the next 10 years, taking into account technological advances in medicine. As part of that review my Department will consult interested parties on the way forward for pathology, including representatives of laboratory staff. I reiterate and assure Members, most definitely, that staff will be fully involved.
Here, as in other parts of these islands, Health Services are changing. Pathology and biomedical services must be geared to the needs of these developments and deliver the high quality service that the public rightly demands. Rev William McCrea asked about additional funding during training. The review will consider this. It will also consider the non-medical education and training levy — a system that does not apply here at present. Biomedical scientists, and all staff in pathology laboratories, will embrace the modernisation agenda and fully participate in shaping what will be an exciting future. I promise that they will be given the opportunity and ability to participate fully.
Members also raised the importance of the Department being fully aware of service needs, and I fully agree. At present the Department receives advice on the planning and provision of hospital laboratory services from the laboratory services speciality advisory committee.
I have listened carefully to the contributions that Members have made. I hope that I have addressed them all. I will address in writing any issues that have not been covered. I welcome this debate and appreciate the attention that the Assembly is giving to this important area of our health and personal social services.
I conclude by assuring Members that issues are being addressed, both through initiatives on pay and through a more wide-ranging review of pathology services, which must and will include workforce issues.

Mr Paul Berry: There has been much covered in the debate on this important issue. I am sure some people are wondering why we brought the motion to the Floor; they think that this is not an important part of the hospital service. It gives an opportunity, for the first time, for biomedical scientists to have a seat at the top of the table, where the expertise and success that they bring to bear for the benefit of patients across the Province can finally be acknowledged. I commend many of the Members who spoke on this subject. Important issues were raised. I will not go over the facts and figures again as my Colleague Mr Roger Hutchinson in his opening remarks and other Members have covered them well.
Another reason why we brought this motion before the Assembly was the successful lobbying by biomedical scientists in hospitals right across this country. Their successful lobbying, knocking on the doors of Assembly Members, brought this matter to a head. As we listened to biomedical scientists in hospital laboratories throughout the Province, it came across time and time again that these were the forgotten people of the Health Service.
I trust that the Minister of Health will not only take on board all the points that have been raised by Members, but will also start to take action. The problem is not pay alone, but the poor pay given to biomedical scientists creates great problems with trying to attract people into such an important profession. The lack of staff will increase the stress on those who are in post. It is difficult for staff to cope in such conditions. Carmel Hanna said that biomedical scientists were grossly underpaid; I agree. Rev Robert Coulter made the important point that the staff must be involved in a pay review group; I agree. If there is to be a pay review — and there will be one — the biomedical scientists must be fully involved. As I said, they are forgotten people.
We have identified two major problems that will have a great impact on health provision in Northern Ireland. First, there is the difficulty with the recruitment of biomedical scientists, who are the backbone of hospitals throughout the country. Secondly, there is a problem with retaining trained staff. We have heard the ridiculous pay figures and can understand why qualified professional people are not attracted to this important profession within the Health Service.
We listened closely to the Minister of Health. She said that terms and conditions are a UK-wide issue. What about our hospitals, approaching another winter crisis? It is not good enough to push the question off once again; action must be taken immediately to address that serious problem. As my Colleague Mr Roger Hutchinson said, serious shortage of biomedical staff can result in the closure of entire hospitals — not just wards — as was demonstrated in a hospital in Wales in May 2000. There, the closure of an accident and emergency department was attributable to a shortage of biomedical scientific staff. Can we allow that to be replicated in Northern Ireland?
The Health Service is in dire straits as it is; the last thing that we need is for biomedical scientists to leave their jobs. The Health Minister must accept that the present injustice in wages is recognised in ‘Agenda for Change’, to which she has referred. We all need to know which staff will be included in the remit of the pay review body? ‘Agenda for Change’ will not be implemented in full until 2003. Will that be too late for biomedical scientists? In the hospitals, we listened to the staff, especially the younger people. Their message was that they would leave as soon as they could get a better job. That is not good enough, but we understand why they say it.

Rev William McCrea: It has been pointed out that this is a United Kingdom matter, which must be dealt with across the kingdom. Therefore it would be interesting to know what representations the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has made to the Minister of Health in London to ensure that there is proper and appropriate remuneration for these jobs. Fancy words are not enough. Money must be put on the table, and the Department here needs to put forward a proposal for biomedical staff to be included in the pay review.

Mr Paul Berry: I totally agree.
It is worthwhile to make the point again that this problem is being addressed in England and Wales. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must answer Dr McCrea’s question. We need to know what the Department is doing at present to address this problem. Will biomedical sciences be included for the first time from April 2001?

Mr John Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Paul Berry: I will not give way to a member of Sinn Féin/IRA.
Will this pay review be adopted in Northern Ireland? England is forging ahead while Northern Ireland is being left behind. In her winding-up speech, the Minister referred to MLSO staff and the increase they will receive. It is important that Members know what the actual pay increase for MLSO staff is. We need those details in the near future so that we can clearly understand the present situation in Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, I call upon the Assembly and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to give equality of esteem and reward to all Health Service staff, including a recognition of the differential that exists in salary levels, and their plans to close that gap.
Biomedical scientists are a forgotten people, but they must be recognised. They have good qualifications, and if action is not taken immediately to address the serious problems with their pay, there will be severe consequences for the Health Service in Northern Ireland in the near future. Action must be taken to address this problem now.
I trust that all Members will support the motion. I commend all of our hospital staff — especially biomedical scientists, who are doing a wonderful job but, sadly, are often forgotten.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety take immediate steps to redress the staffing inadequacies in the biomedical sciences in the Health Service, initiate a manpower planning exercise to consider the staffing levels, terms and conditions of employment of staff in these areas and establish arrangements to address the needs of the Health Service in Northern Ireland in regard to this area of her responsibility.

Assembly Business: Fire Service Motion

Mrs Eileen Bell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since the motion was submitted, I have been informed that various options that may render it unnecessary are being considered. Would it be in order not to proceed with it?

Mr Speaker: I will deal first with the question of order. It is in order for a motion that is on the Order Paper not to be moved. However, once moved, a motion may be withdrawn only by leave of the House.
Although it is in order for a motion not to be moved, Members need to consider whether it is helpful. When a matter is on the Order Paper, Members prepare to address it, and Ministers, at my request, prepare to respond. A cancellation knocks subsequent items out of joint. Furthermore, matters that could have been on the Order Paper are displaced because the Business Committee has to make a choice.
Members need to consider seriously whether this should be allowed to become practice.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for your ruling. I quite agree that a Member has the right not to move a motion that stands in his or her name. However, I also agree that it should not be a regular occurrence, for Members prepare to speak, and Ministers attend to respond. Whether a motion is to be moved is a matter for the Member in whose name it stands, and a motion that has not been moved, though on the Order Paper, is not before the House.

Mr Speaker: I appeal to Members to heed what I have said, not because I have said it, but because it is in the interests of the House as a whole.
Is the motion moved or not moved?

Mrs Eileen Bell: Not moved.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Speaker]

Planning Control: Built Heritage (Belfast)

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to raise this issue today. I regret that I am speaking a few hours earlier than I had hoped, and my preparations have not been as elaborate as I would have liked. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to draw the Assembly’s attention to what I consider to be a disastrous state of affairs in Belfast, particularly south Belfast.
In doing so, I readily recognise that anything I may say about south Belfast or any inference I may draw from south Belfast applies equally well to similar pockets of very attractive housing in both east and north Belfast. I am referring not only to large houses that some people may consider to be too big or to have outlived their usefulness but just as much to very attractive small and medium-sized houses in areas throughout the city that are quite often destroyed for the sake of redevelopment and apartment development.
I have no difficulty with a situation where rot or blight has set in. That can happen to family houses as much as it happens to other buildings, and often it is more effective to demolish than renovate. However, in all the cases that I will refer to, I want to highlight the needless destruction of good-quality, attractive and perfectly functional homes that are a key part of our urban environment and our built heritage.
In many ways this is a heritage that we are claiming to protect. We are supposedly preserving, preparing and restoring it, but in many cases, we are not doing that. Indeed, I know of very few cases where we are.
It is no fault of the present Minister, who has been in office for only a short time, but there is little or no funding to maintain the built heritage. We could look at that issue in a future budget, if not in the current one.
I am concerned that good-quality family homes in excellent repair are being levelled because the land is worth more with apartments on it. About 18 months ago, I bought a house that was being pursued by someone who wanted to knock it down, and I had to pay over the odds for it.
There is little or no legislation to stop this rape and pillage taking place. Existing legislation is weak and platitudinous. Planners really have no authority or power to stop demolition except in the cases of special listed buildings. Even then, when someone demolishes a listed building, they very often get away with it. There is no real penalty or retribution. Much of this is inevitable, as there are no serious regulations or an up-to-date urban plan. Dozens of fine buildings across Belfast are being wrecked needlessly.
Not all houses on the Malone Road are big, and to prove that, I have a couple of photographs of a hole in the ground and a pile of rubble where, a few weeks ago, two excellent, small three-bedroomed houses stood adjoining the Stranmillis Road.
However, this destruction is taking place not only in the Stranmillis area. Number 150 Malone Road is to come under the hammer; 1 Deramore Park South, which adjoins it, has already gone; and 3 Deramore Park South has either gone or is about to go. A whole plot has been wiped out, and a whole corner has been disfigured.
It is not just the built fabric that suffers. This wrecking breaks up family-friendly neighbourhoods and cohesion by removing family homes. It creates anonymous and in some cases unsafe areas in Belfast which were previously safe and secure. We must urgently take whatever measures are necessary to give the Planning Service the powers and penalties to stop this destruction — this unauthorised or inappropriate demolition.
Perhaps it is inevitable. Over the last 30 years Ministers have parachuted in and out of here with regular monotony. By and large, they were flown in by helicopter for an hour or two — or a day or two at most. Nobody in authority gave a damn about what was going on.
I thank the Minister of the Environment for being here, for taking an interest and for responding to me when I raised the matter previously. In the light of the relative peace that has grown steadily over the last six years and the formation of the Assembly and its associated Executive, responsibility for this matter now rests primarily in this Chamber. It is the responsibility of the Assembly, the Ministers and the Departments for Regional Development, Social Development and the Department of the Environment to ensure that future development and land use in Belfast is worked out appropriately. We need a new urban plan that protects and secures family-friendly neighbourhoods and family homes.
The Ad Hoc Committee’s inquiry into the port of Belfast 18 months ago revealed that there are hundreds of acres of land. Indeed, the real debate was not about the Port of Belfast; it was about the amount of land down there that was vital to the city.
The majority of the brownfield or disused land in what was the old dockland on the north foreshore and the land adjacent to the shipyard on the eastern side is suitable for housing if the appropriate planning and organisation were to be carried out. In the United States and Europe, areas that were previously derelict have now become the most desirable places to live. This is perhaps most evident in what has been done at Laganside. The efforts that have been made there should be doubled and trebled to ensure that young professionals or those who need apartments find suitable accommodation in parts of the city where there is no threat of family homes being eroded.
South Belfast is particularly vulnerable in that many of the family homes there have already been eroded for student dwellings. Many neighbourhoods in south Belfast have been eroded. Students need somewhere to live, but providing them with accommodation has broken up those communities. Things are now heading in the other direction, however, and that accommodation is being broken up for apartment redevelopment.
I welcome the fact that the Odyssey developers want to build houses adjacent to its site. If we were to move aggressively and effectively, we could ensure that 2,000 or 3,000 well-serviced and environmentally attractive housing units will be built in the general Laganside area.
Some of the apartments that have already been built are not well-serviced. They are very attractive internally, but the environs are not well serviced with facilities such as shops and other services that people need, so those developments might as well be on the moon as in some of those areas. The erosion and destruction of good-quality family homes will be less necessary if social development continues in Belfast. I want to emphasise again that there is a desperate need to ensure that we develop unused brownfield land and that we do not destroy existing good-quality homes in the process. We must also ensure that those developments are adequately serviced.
There are some beautiful apartment developments in ClarendonDock, but the public transport system in general is very poor. If we are to have a new city and a new style of twenty-first century living, public transport must be available to service any new development, and we must also be aware of the need for residents to feel a sense of security and cohesion in them. Many of those already living in apartments find them very comfortable inside, but they find them a little unsafe. These are subtle things, but they are driving people to demanding that they live in areas such as south Belfast or parts of east or north Belfast. Good homes are being levelled, as 10 or 12 apartments can be built on the site of a family home at a cost of £1·5 million to £2 million. I do not know of any family who can compete with that. It is not too much to ask that the Department of the Environment, the Department for Regional Development and the Department for Social Development get together and set the process in motion for a cohesive development plan to be prepared — a plan that will provide adequate living accommodation on brownfield sites for the next 10 years.
I want to re-emphasise that this should be on the north foreshore, on the old dockland and on the eastern foreshore, out along the river — areas which, with the right support services, would, I believe, be extremely attractive.
Is it too much to ask that with the help of the Minister of the Environment the necessary legislation be introduced to ensure that planners can stop the current rape and pillage of communities and the best buildings in the south of the city?
I want to mention once again that I warmly welcome the recent efforts of Minister SamFoster to declare some strengthening of measures in south Belfast and parts of north and east Belfast, but I do not believe that we have gone far enough. The plans can still be got round, and buildings can still be demolished. We need legislation that is ruthless, similar to that which exists in European cities such as Amsterdam, and we need to ensure that we follow through on that legislation so that whatever heritage we have is preserved. In 10 or 20 years’ time there will be no point in bemoaning the fact that it has gone. Once it has gone, it will be gone for ever.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I have no doubt that this House will return to this issue again. There are increasing pressures on the planning system, and the changing demographics in Northern Ireland, which came about as a consequence of economic growth, have resulted in people’s having different expectations as far as living and accommodation are concerned. I would like to lay down a couple of principles before I go into some of the details of what DrMcDonnell said today.
First, no city can expect to become an architectural museum. Cities and towns change; they change dramatically, and to say simply that we should preserve everything — that we should have some kind of "pickling" system as far as planning is concerned — would be wrong.
Secondly, we must also recognise the constraints under which we are living. The Government have estimated that by the year 2020, between 100,000 and 150,000 new homes will be needed in Northern Ireland — many of them in the greater Belfast area or the Belfast metropolitan area — and the Government wish to see 60% of those new homes being built on brownfield sites. Brownfield sites do not just simply mean derelict sites; the definition of brownfield sites is much wider than that. The Government, in their assessment of being able to meet those housing targets, also recognise that we are going to have to recycle some sites which presently have some buildings on them. That is another constraint that we have got to work under, for if we do not, we will have to look at more development on greenfield sites. That, I believe, would be unacceptable in terms of urban sprawl and the sustainability which DrMcDonnell mentioned as regards the use and the intensification of the use of the services which we have already poured money into — areas such as schools, hospitals, transport networks or the infrastructure that is required to back up housing developments.
Thirdly, I believe we have to preserve what is good architecturally.
What Dr McDonnell said was not clear. I am not sure whether he is against demolition full stop or whether he accepts that there are properties which are no longer best suited to housing needs and demand and which, perhaps, do not have any great architectural merit.
I am not just talking about listed buildings. There are buildings which are not listed but which, as has been rightly pointed out, form part of the townscape in a particular area. Although they may not be officially listed, we would want to preserve them. The Member did not make it clear whether he was saying to the Department "We do not want any more demolition." If he wishes to clarify that point I will be happy to give way to him.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: The points that Sammy Wilson is making are very valid, and I welcome the debate. I am not against demolition per se. There is a great deal of rubbish that needs to be demolished, such as old warehouses, and I accept that land does need to be recycled.
However, good-quality houses, in a good state of repair and perfectly suitable for living in, although perhaps too big for families, could be put to an institutional use, but in many cases they have been demolished. Such action is ravishing and damaging whole areas. I accept the point being made. I am not against demolition as such, but I am against the demolition of buildings that should not be demolished.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Dr McDonnell took a minute to clarify that, Mr Speaker. I hope that you will not take that out of my time. I hear what is being said about houses which are perhaps no longer suitable for family needs being put to institutional use. I have also heard objectors to planning applications saying that the institutional use of large properties destroys the character of a neighbourhood.
The fact remains that there are some large properties that are no longer suitable for single-family occupation but cannot be turned into a number of smaller units. The planners have to legitimately ask what can be done about such properties and how they fit into the overall scheme of things.
It is grasping at straws to think that the housing needs can be facilitated on land at the harbour. We must avoid mixing unacceptable industrial use with housing developments. There is limited scope in the harbour estate, but it will not meet Belfast’s housing needs. Unfortunately, most of the new housing need relates to single people who wish to have manageable apartments. That is where the housing developers are focusing their attention.
There are a couple of things, however, which could be done and which may help, and I hope that the Minister will take them on board. I know from my experience on the Belfast City Council planning committee — and I have also heard Colleagues from outside Belfast talk about this — that people do not fear apartment developments in their area, but they do fear the accumulation of such developments in their area.
At present there is nothing in the planning rules to allow planners to decide when saturation point has been reached. At what point does another application for demolition and an apartment-type development begin to radically change the nature of an area? I know that the Department is currently looking at a policy paper on housing and settlements, so perhaps that is one of the issues that the Minister ought to be considering. Can we include some requirement in the planning rules for planners to look at where there are unacceptable accumulations of these kinds of demolitions and apartment-type developments? We also ought to be considering where apartment-type developments are most acceptable.
Perhaps we should be saying that they should be only on road frontages in some areas, although that might not be acceptable for apartment-type developments that are designed for elderly people. What about apartment development above shops? I know that that has been resisted on occasions, and developers who wanted to do it found it impossible, because Roads Service demanded car parking facilities that the developers could not provide it the shops fronted onto roads. So, there is a Roads Service problem. If we are to examine planning issues we need flexibility from the Roads Service as well as from the planners.
There is scope in the quality initiative for making the money that developers pay for large houses — before knocking them down and cramming as much as possible onto the sites — less attractive. That could be done if the quality residential environment requirements were to be applied strictly, but they are not. Several Ministers will need to consider the work that is being done in their Departments, but the Assembly must also realise that it cannot, and should not, stop some of the developments that we have talked about.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to Dr McDonnell for not being in the Chamber for all of the introductory speech. That was due to circumstances beyond my control.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Member. Across the city, including my constituency, there is widespread concern about change. People wonder whether areas will be changed beyond recognition and whether such change will take place at great — perhaps undue — speed. Like Dr McDonnell, I welcome certain recent policy developments, particularly the designation of the five conservation areas in various parts of the city. On that issue, the Department of the Environment has said
"The prime consideration for the Department in assessing whether development proposals are acceptable will be the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area."
It is important that the Department live up to its promises to pursue and punish, where appropriate, developers who flout those toughened regulations.
In the past, we had a system that might have been described as retrospective planning control. Developers put up buildings without permission and then hoped that permission would be granted retrospectively. Usually they were successful. Once a building was up, it was rare that instructions were issued for it to be pulled down. There is a danger that we will return to that. We already have a raft of planning regulations. Are they going to be adequately interpreted and implemented to prevent drastic and irreversible changes to the shape, nature and character of supposedly protected areas?
Although I welcome recent developments such as the conservation areas, I regret that the Department of the Environment has not recommended the introduction of third-party right of appeal against planning decisions, irrespective of whether the area concerned falls within the newly announced conservation areas. At present, only the developer has the right of appeal, and that has often been used by, for example, supermarket chains and volume housebuilders to challenge and overturn the rejection of a scheme by the relevant local authority.
The system is rather perverse; it seems to be protecting the interests of the powerful lobbies against the little man or woman — in other words, against the resident. I fully support the policy set out in planning policy statement6, published by the planning service in March1999. This states that planning aims to resolve any conflict between conservation and development and to secure mutual benefit as well as prevent development detrimental to our heritage.
I am not against development. I appreciate MrSammy Wilson’s point that the overall perspective of the regional development strategy lends an imperative to build as much new housing stock as possible in so-called brownfield sites. However, I propose that we retain these sites as genuine brownfields, instead of erasing the sound, attractive gems of our urban fabric.
I am concerned that, until now, we have lacked a central planning authority with real teeth and powers of sanction. I hope we are now moving towards change in that regard. I support the motion.

Prof Monica McWilliams: We have reached a crisis of interdepartmental conflict. I will speak specifically about south Belfast. MrSammyWilson wondered where we are to build, and I understand his frustration.
This week alone, I am involved in three planning appeals on this issue. I agree with DrBirnie that we need a third-party-appeal system. One of the appeals I am involved in is a case of rejected development, a complicated case concerning Wellington College, where the developers persist in pressing for the site. That will be heard on Wednesday. Almost 50% of my constituency work is taken up by planning development issues in south Belfast alone.
Overdevelopment is causing enormous problems. I do not want our soccer pitches and our greenfield sites sold off — and Castlereagh Council has been doing this recently — because of the development potential for supermarkets. We have fewer greenfield sites now than ever before. My own son is involved in the south Belfast soccer league, and participating teams are barely able to play a game of soccer because there are so few pitches available. They are now going outside Belfast to play.
The Victorian and Edwardian character of old Belfast is of so little relevance to people, particularly developers, that what was once beautiful about this city is fast disappearing before our eyes. It is particularly poignant to visit areas where houses which are over 100 years old still stand, enhancing their neighbourhoods. These places are pointed out as ripe for development, and people are knocking on their doors, harrying the owners to sell the property. This is happening to my neighbours and residents in my area.
It is possible to reuse older buildings. For example, on the OrmeauRoad, religious orders are fast pulling out of children’s homes and old people’s homes. On the top right-hand side as you approach the SaintfieldRoad, a convent has been converted into flats and apartments, mainly —and very appropriately — for young, single people. It looks good, and it feels as if a brand new community is beginning to develop there. This was all done within the facade of the old convent.
On the left-hand side of the road the Nazareth Lodge old people’s home has just been sold for £3·5 million. The building will be pulled down, and a proposal is in place to build 109 units. Why could the same not have been done on the left-hand side of the road as was done on the right?
The two Departments have an issue to address. One deals with planning development, the other with roads service and transportation. Within 100 yards of that roundabout and junction we will have over 250 apartments. Multiply that by at least two and a half to find the number of people who will come pouring out onto what is already a congested area. We have serious problems.
I suggest that we try to keep the townscape character where possible, particularly where there are buildings of some merit which are over 100 years old. Some planning policies allow for that, but they also allow for exceptions. Those are reasonable if no material change is made to the character appearance of the area. Most of us can live with that. However, as a political representative, I have discovered that there is no statutory power whatsoever attached to an area’s townscape character. Real powers are available only when the area is designated a conservation area. On the other hand, Malone is a designated conservation area, yet next week I will be involved in a planning appeal concerning 32-34 WellingtonPark. Beautiful houses built in 1875 will be torn down to make way for 53 apartments — and that is in a conservation area. What is going wrong? We designate a conservation area, and then we suggest that these two old houses of such character be pulled down for apartments.
Members may not be aware that the historic buildings grant, which was paid up until October 1999, has now been stopped. I wrote to the Minister and thanked him for responding. He wrote
"Because of the financial commitments resulting from earlier applications, acceptance of new applications received after 28 October 1999 has been suspended."
We introduce historic buildings to be listed, and we argue that they cannot be demolished. I am very pleased with some of the proposals about the demolishing of listed buildings and increasing the fines from £5,000 to £20,000. Only by doing that are we really going to get somewhere. At the same time, however, grants have been suspended. They are not abolished — the Minister rightly says that the policy will be reviewed after April2001 — so we have to wait another year before the process for grant applications to preserve our historic buildings is reopened.
We are facing a crisis. The grants to protect what historic buildings are around have now been suspended. The issue also relates to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Many people who want to preserve the heritage of Belfast will not be financially able to do so. The grants — minimal as they were — were at least an acceptance and an acknowledgement that some assistance was needed.
Do meetings take place between the Department for Regional Development and the Minister’s own Department? Most of the complaints I receive suggest that planning development is taking place in one Department, planning control in another, and the Roads Service is doing something entirely different. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
With regard to the introduction of tree preservation orders, it is continually pointed out that we have very few trees in this country, mostly because they were torn down many years ago and others were not planted simultaneously, as they were elsewhere. We have a real problem with old trees. I am involved in another planning inquiry about taking down a beautiful woodland area. I remind the Minister that at the end of this month he is to launch Preservation for Woodlands, yet all those trees are to be pulled down to make way for a major road.
These are serious issues. The Minister should hold up his hand and say that he is going to make some serious changes very shortly and not kick this off into some distant future.

Mr Robert McCartney: I apologise to Dr McDonnell that I was not able to be present when he commenced his address.
What is unique about this debate is that, broadly speaking, with a number of peripheral variations, every Member who has spoken has been, at heart, in support of the motion. There is no doubt that the problem in south Belfast is being replicated in many other areas, particularly in my constituency of North Down. There are competing interests. On the one hand there is the need to preserve our architectural and historical heritage and on the other the need to provide housing for an increasing population. The truth is that these competing interests are by no means incompatible. Dr McDonnell has pointed out one area where something might be done.
We should look at how the expansion of multi-storey dwellings is being driven. Is it being driven by the requirement for housing in those specific areas or by speculative builders and estate agents? They are selecting areas, particularly quality residential areas with a architectural background, and deciding that they might knock down a few of those houses and put up, as Ms McWilliams said, 50 or 60 buildings in their place at a vast profit. As MsMcWilliams again rightly said, we see, not only in south Belfast but also in other parts of Northern Ireland, people knocking on doors, offering substantial sums and buying up very fine houses currently occupied by families. They then knock them down, very often before they have planning permission. Unless there is a conservation order there is nothing to prevent the owner of a property demolishing that property. Once he has done that the planners are then faced with a vacant site with a history of residential accommodation. The only question is whether the planners will tolerate a somewhat dissimilar type of residential accommodation in the form of 50 apartment units where formerly there were two gracious Edwardian houses. Unless there is a conservation order, that will be the result.
One of the rather more sinister aspects of this is the knock-on effect. Once a precedent is established and a fine house is knocked down to make way for a block of apartments, particularly in high-quality residential areas, the next thing is those people who objected in the first place become increasingly unhappy. Then when someone knocks at their door, offering them a substantial sum to buy their house for the purpose of knocking it down, they are in a more sensitive position. They already have a block of flats beside them. They are unhappy about the position and are therefore more willing to sell. When the application comes in to the Planning Service for approval for that block of flats, the precedent has been established by the primary one, already up and running.
There is no doubt that planning control must be introduced before permission is granted for demolition. We need to address the problem at that stage. There should be legislation relating to demolition so that those who propose to demolish would have to put in their planning application while the original building is still extant. Then the planners would be faced not with vacant ground but with an existing building, the merits of which might be considered in contradistinction to what it is proposed to put on that space.
The second point I want to raise was mentioned by Dr Birnie. It relates to the builder who demolishes a building and then proceeds to build on the site without having outline planning permission. In other cases, having obtained outline planning permission, the builder rushes the construction of a building with perhaps an additional floor, adding another 10 apartments that were not provided for in the outline planning.
When the planners arrive, it is virtually built. The roofers are busy putting in the roof and the dormer windows. The architect comes along and enters into discussion, retrospective plans are submitted, and the planning department is faced with a very turgid process to have the building demolished. It is also faced with the sense of destruction that people feel at seeing a newly erected building, or part of one, being torn down. Of course, as has happened in North Down, once the builders get away with this, it encourages others to replicate their success.
There is a very urgent need for new definitive guidelines, or perhaps legislation, to provide an opportunity to review not only what is there but the appropriateness of what is intended to replace it, before planning permission is given. These are all matters that have to be addressed.
Finally, in relation to general planning concepts, the planners have often been given guidelines or rules that take into account everything except the sentiments of the people who actually live in the area. It is no accident that the vast majority of complaints that come before the ombudsman are connected with planning matters. People who have lived in an area for many years and who are comfortable with it, its surroundings and their neighbours, suddenly find that its character is transformed. When they go to the planners or lodge objections, the planners very rationally and logically go through everything they say, and say that they are sorry, but they cannot stop the builders because they are not in breach of some logical but inhuman planning regulation.

Mr Alban Maginness: One could be forgiven for believing that this was a debate about south Belfast. I would like to widen the focus a little bit to include not just my constituency of North Belfast but all of Belfast. This affects our built heritage, whether in Belfast or elsewhere. However, as the motion mentions Belfast, I will stick to Belfast.
I agree with MrMcCartney that there has been a general consensus in this debate. That is to be welcomed. Dr McDonnell has done a good service to the House in raising the issue of built heritage and, indirectly, the whole issue of planning in Northern Ireland. I agree with him that there has been considerable destruction of family homes, not just in south Belfast but throughout Belfast. It is having an adverse affect on the ability of young families in particular to obtain decent homes within the confines of the city of Belfast. The Minister should take that into consideration when he reflects on this debate. If you drive young families out of Belfast you create a situation in which only single people or elderly people live within the confines of the city, and younger people are forced into the suburbs. That will cause serious problems for the future development of Belfast.
The problem arises where there is an over- concentration of new apartments, and they reach such a critical mass that they squeeze out families. That has happened to a considerable extent in south Belfast, it is happening to some extent in parts of east Belfast, and it is now beginning to happen in parts of north Belfast as well.
Fortunately the process is only beginning in north Belfast, but it can be arrested in this and other parts of the city to the advantage of families. I welcome the creation by the Minister of five conservation zones in the Belfast area — that is particularly helpful. However, as I said in writing to the Minister, the conservation zone in the Chichester Road and Somerton Road area is very welcome, but the zone boundaries have created a problem. Developers are now concentrating their activities in the area immediately outside the conservation zone, thereby increasing pressure on the properties in that area. I am sure that this has happened in other areas as well. The Minister could take into account the negative effects in areas just outside the conservation zone and examine those effects to see if they could be prevented by the extension of some of the zone boundaries. Alternatively, measures could be taken to assist controlled development in the areas immediately outside the conservation zones.
We must also be realistic about our built heritage. Although we may want to preserve a certain building, and while our intentions towards conserving our built heritage may be good, problems often arise when a property, particularly a large one, is owned by a voluntary organisation. It is difficult for voluntary organisations, such as charities or churches, to pay for the upkeep, repair or renovation of those buildings. It is not enough for the Department to place underfunded voluntary organisations which apply for grants on a waiting list because there are too many applications for grants. More funding must be made available for the conservation of our built heritage.
Not only is the preservation of our built heritage a good thing in itself, but it has a wider benefit. Although there is an obvious social benefit, it has the wider benefit of developing the tourist infrastructure and attracting tourists.

Mr Speaker: May I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Alban Maginness: I have one final sentence, Mr Speaker.
There is value in preserving our built heritage so that it will attract tourism to Belfast, which will be of social and economic benefit to the city and to other areas.

Mr Sam Foster: I commend and thank Members for their interest, thoughts and comments. This is a timely debate on an important topic of considerable concern to the citizens of Belfast. I shall try to deal with some of the many valid points which Members raised.
I note Mr Maginness’s observations about the pressure just outside the conservation areas and the need to keep the conservation area boundaries under review.
Mr Sammy Wilson welcomed the recognition of the need to balance apartment development pressures with the preservation of architectural standards. His helpful suggestions on these policy issues will be addressed by the Department for Regional Development in its strategic planning role with, specifically, a policy statement on housing and settlements.
Dr Birnie and Ms McWilliams raised the issue of the absence of third-party rights of appeal. This is constantly under review but has not yet been brought to fruition because it has a positive side and a negative side. We are told that the planning authority processes are very slow, and I anticipate their becoming even slower. However, that does not mean to say that I am ruling out third-party appeals.
Reference was made to liaison between the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development. I agree with MonicaMcWilliams on this issue and will ensure that there is closer liaison.
Belfast is experiencing sustained development pressure at a level not seen since the 1960s. However, we are experiencing difficulties with its current buoyancy — a good situation to be in. The same could be said for the whole of Northern Ireland. Now is the time for planners to take the lead, to give clear directions on the development of industry and to take a firm and unequivocal stand on the protection of our valued townscape heritage.
It is important to recognise where this development pressure is coming from. The strength of the property market signals profound confidence in the future of Northern Ireland, something to be celebrated. Money is being invested in property in Northern Ireland that for many years went elsewhere. Investment is welcomed, but we must ensure that the built heritage of Belfast, the Victorian and Edwardian character of the city that is so precious to residents and visitors alike, is not destroyed in the process. Investment in property can offer much needed refurbishment, but all too often redevelopment is seen as offering the best return on capital.
Much attention has been focused on apartment redevelopment. Where is this market pressure coming from? The population is growing, but even if it were to remain static, we would still need more dwelling units because of powerful social trends in the community. For instance, the elderly are living longer and want to hold on to their independence; young people want to leave home earlier; single parents are living with small children; and married couples are sadly all too often living apart.
One solution might be to continue building more houses in the green belt. This was a subject of much debate at last year’s public examination of ‘Shaping Our Future’, which will soon be brought forward in final form by the Minister for Regional Development. The message that emerged from that exercise is that the green-belt area is cherished and greenfield sites on the edge of the city should be eked out sparingly. It points up opportunities for brownfield development — that is, the renewal of vacant and derelict sites within the city boundaries.
However, there are things to celebrate. We have achieved spectacular success in the heart of the city by promoting development on underutilised land along the River Lagan. Laganside has transformed the river frontage, and waterfront apartments will always attract premium prices because of their location. There has also been a surge of welcome applications for the development of medium-rise apartment blocks in the city centre. Belfast does not have a tradition of city-centre apartments, but in a few short years we have seen a remarkable shift in attitude to living in the city.
All of that is exciting and will transform the centre of Belfast from a shopping, leisure and office destination for commuters into a 24-hour living city. Belfast is booming, and we should rejoice in that fact. Of course, there are things to protect. The demand for homes and the eagerness of investors to capitalise on the new confidence in the future is threatening the more popular suburban areas of the city, the Edwardian suburbs of Belfast in particular. That is why on 4August this year I announced the designation of five conservation areas, aimed at protecting the city’s Edwardian heritage.
Ms McWilliams referred to an appeal coming through and the area losing its conservation area status. Sometimes we get beaten when an appeal is upheld by the Planning Appeals Commission, which rather defeats our policies. By such designation the law provides for consent to be sought for the demolition of existing property. That was going to be important. Some people have said that if the sun, moon and stars were within the reach of predatory human hands, they might not be there either.
We cannot always look to the conservation-area device. The areas designated are not the only ones where family homes are being brought forward for replacement by apartment blocks. These five areas contain a significant proportion of fine, architecturally designed dwellings, built around 100 years ago on generous plots. That characteristic means that these areas can be regarded as strong candidates for conservation-area status.
I am sure Members will agree that it would be quite wrong to designate an area as a conservation area if it did not possess what the law describes as
"special, architectural or historic interest, the character of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance".
We cannot lower standards for the sake of creating a conservation area. We must examine the quality.

Mr Speaker: I must draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we have only one minute left.

Mr Sam Foster: Conservation-area status will not put a stop to development, nor should it. The Planning Service has to examine each proposal on its merits, taking fully into account relevant policy statements. However, it has taken the heat out of the situation. The planners have the tools to do the job. This is an important and timely designation.
There are proposals for new legislation, which I should refer to in closing. I intend to bring forward proposed changes to planning legislation that will strengthen enforcement powers and bolster the hands of the planners. These will include extension of the powers to control demolition (we are concerned about this, as all are); new powers to spot listed buildings at risk (a necessary protection issue); increased penalties for altering or demolishing a listed building; and the protection of trees in conservation areas.
I am taking a personal interest in this important work. I have already held the first of what will become regular meetings throughout the city concerning the Belfast metropolitan area plan, which will cover six district council areas. It is being driven forward to the tightest possible timescale. This will be an inclusive process involving extensive public consultation. It will also provide opportunity for increasing locational policy coverage and offering increased protection for those areas of a townscape character that are vulnerable to pressure from developers.

Mr Speaker: I must ask the Minister to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Sam Foster: The debate has been valuable in informing me of the matters of concern to Members at the outset of this process. It is a critical time, when we must look to the future of our capital city, of which we are very proud.
Adjourned at 4.23 pm.